goooo pats (NFL playoffs) [Archive] - Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums

Strider

01-04-2007, 12:14 AM

Considering my preseason picks went horribly wrong, feel free to ignore me here.

The only reason the Giants are in the playoffs is because of Tiki Barber. They just got beat by this same Eagles team a few weeks ago, a team that suddenly looks like a revitalized squad under Jeff Garcia. New York still isn't that healthy (no Toomer, no Shockey, no Nate Webster), Eli Manning still isn't that good... Plus consider the fact that Eagles can *gasp* run the football! That's something they've never done particularly well, but I suspect the Giants don't have an answer for Brian Westbrook. You're telling me this won't be a repeat of the waxing they got last year from Carolina? Thanks for showing up guys, but here's the door. Eagles 27, Giants 10

I'm sure Casey will beg to differ here, but I maintained that the NFL would figure out Tony Romo and I think it's safe to say they have. He's been far from impressive in December, Terrell Owens is a big effin' whiner like always, the defense has given up more than 30 points a game in the last month. What happens when Dallas falls behind 13-0 early in the second half and Matt Hasselbeck is throwing the ball all over the field? My money is on a massive implosion, and let's not forget this game is in Seattle. Seahawks 30, Cowboys 13

The Jets are an interesting team to me, if only because they've proven to be one of the few squads that can take it to the Patriots. A lot of people haven't been impressed, but things are supposed to be wide open in the playoffs, aren't they? I seem to recall Tom Brady getting harassed in their last tilt. A lot. The statistics don't tell the whole story with this New York team, and I've got a feeling they've got another playoff run in them. Jets 17, Patriots 14

This Kansas City-Indianapolis matchup should be fun. In case anyone forgot, neither team punted the last time these two teams played in January. Everyone will point out the seemingly lopsided Larry Johnson-Indy run D matchup, but let's not forget that LJ has carried the ball 416 times already, along with 40-some-odd catches. How much does he have left in the tank? Kansas City's defense isn't much better than Indy's, by the way, and they've still got that Peyton Manning guy. I hear he abuses awful defenses. Colts 35, Chiefs 24

edczxcvbnm

01-04-2007, 12:25 AM

FUCK THE PATRIOTS!

Having said that I hope the Jets beat them. They did once already this year and the Patriots just are not as strong as they have been in years past.

I think the Eagles, Cowboys(they have been shakey all year with good game/bad game), Jets and Chiefs will make it through this first round of mayhem.

ffxatticus

01-04-2007, 12:29 AM

Eagles will destroy the giants, due to the "Eli is Gay" factor. (31-14 Eagles)

Alexander will come up big against the cowboys, and Romo's ego will get to him. (21-13 Hawks)

The Jets WILL NOT beat Tom Brady in the playoffs, who has lost only 1 playoff game in his career. Yes the Jets did beat them on a piece of crap day, but that was some luck. (24-17 Pats)

Colts CHiefs will be completely offensive, but Colts Running D? Larry Johnson? I give this to the chiefs. (44-37 Chiefs)

Bloodline666

01-04-2007, 01:53 AM

smurf THE PATRIOTS!

Having said that I hope the Jets beat them. They did once already this year and the Patriots just are not as strong as they have been in years past.

I think the Eagles, Cowboys(they have been shakey all year with good game/bad game), Jets and Chiefs will make it through this first round of mayhem.

Let's not forget that if anything happens to Tom Brady, the Patriots would be stuck with a colorblind quarterback, which will screw up their offense big time.

escobert

01-04-2007, 02:39 AM

WTF GROSSMAN YOU MAKE EVERYONE ONE NOT LIKE THE BEARS DAMN YOU

I Took the Red Pill

01-04-2007, 04:11 AM

Chargers-Eagles, I haven't decided who I think will win yet.

Raistlin

01-04-2007, 04:12 AM

WTF GROSSMAN YOU MAKE EVERYONE ONE NOT LIKE THE BEARS DAMN YOU

Grossman does indeed suck. Because of their shakey offense, I would put Chicago below Philadelphia and Seattle in Super Bowl consideration.

Kansas City vs. Indy is a very interesting matchup. Yes, Kansas City has a one-sided offense, but Indianapolis lost to Houston, which has a zero-sided offense. They also lost to Tennessee, whose running game is not nearly equal to KC's. Still, both of those losses were road losses (as was the Jacksonville defensive implosion), and Indy will be at home. I think Indy will most likely win, but I still hope Larry Johnson destroys them.

escobert

01-04-2007, 04:19 AM

below seattle? did you not see chicago kick seattles ass?

The Unknown Guru

01-04-2007, 04:19 AM

The Chargers are doing great (*cough*LT*cough*), but Rivers is losing his potency. As their offense becomes more one-dimensional, it will be much easier to stop LT. I say Ravens over Chargers for AFC.

As for the NFC, the Bears' defense is holding strong, and if they can score some points, I think they can take the conference.

Oh, yeah. I'm from Seattle, so GO HAWKS!

El Bandito

01-04-2007, 05:51 AM

I think it will be Ravens - Eagles in the Superbowl.

It's not just the offense that worries me with the Bears. They're facing some injuries and the last weeks their defense has looked a bit shakey. Saints defense just isn't good enough to let them go all the way. Just look at the Colts of years past to see what happens with unbalanced teams.

As for the Chargers, it all depends of Rivers. It's his first playoffs and you know the Ravens will stuff the box to stop Tomlinson. It's up to him to find his playmaker (Gates) and make the clutch throws if his team has a chance to win. Also, McNair is an absolute beast in the playoffs. With the big man Jamal Lewis pounding it down the middle, I could see them taking a little bit of that outside heat away from McNair because of uncertainty. I love the Chargers, but at this point I'd take the Ravens' veteran QB over Rivers. Though he could still surprise me. It's honestly all on his shoulders.

Raistlin

01-04-2007, 06:35 AM

below seattle? did you not see chicago kick seattles ass?

Did you not see Grossman in the thirteen weeks since then?

- - - TAURUS - - -

01-04-2007, 06:49 AM

Eagles baby, that's all it's about.

escobert

01-04-2007, 06:51 AM

Tavrobel

01-04-2007, 04:01 PM

Chargers-Eagles, I haven't decided who I think will win yet. and the Iggles will smash the Chargers apart. And the Patriots aren't nearly as good as they were in the last few years. Either that, or everyone else has gotten tons better, which means the Patriots ALWAYS sucked.

edczxcvbnm

01-04-2007, 04:25 PM

The Jets WILL NOT beat Tom Brady in the playoffs, who has lost only 1 playoff game in his career. Yes the Jets did beat them on a piece of crap day, but that was some luck. (24-17 Pats)

Prepare to make that 2 playoff losses.

Raistlin

01-05-2007, 02:17 AM

Del Murder

01-05-2007, 03:41 AM

Either the Eagles or Seattle will lose to San Diego or Baltimore. If I had to pick two I'd say San Diego over Philadelphia.

- - - TAURUS - - -

01-05-2007, 03:48 AM

Or the Eagles will win :D

escobert

01-05-2007, 04:00 AM

below seattle? did you not see chicago kick seattles ass?

Did you not see Grossman in the thirteen weeks since then?

he's had a couple good games, yes he's had several horrid games, but seattle lost to san fran so they suck and should not even be in the playoffs.

Chicago lost to Miami and Green Bay.

My point is, I think Seattle will play better in the playoffs than they so far have. And I see no reason to believe Chicago will, because their offense really really sucks. Playoff teams are not like Arizona, where you can turn the ball over 35209435 times and not score at all offensively and still pull off a win. Although it is the NFC where no team has played really consistently (except arguably the Eagles in the last half of the season), so Chicago still has a shot.
the green bay game really meant nothing, why would chicago play all out for nothing? not like they were going to go undefeated or something. but still san fran sucks and seattle lost to them, that's no worse then losing to miami who beats good teams but plays for :skull::skull::skull::skull: against :skull::skull::skull::skull:ty teams.

Bloodline666

01-05-2007, 04:20 AM

WTF GROSSMAN YOU MAKE EVERYONE ONE NOT LIKE THE BEARS DAMN YOU

Here's what I have to say about the Bears' chances in the Playoffs:

http://sjl-static12.sjl.youtube.com/vi/Qwq7BYOnDrM/3.jpg
PLAYOFFS?! Don't talk about PLAYOFFS! Are you kidding me?! PLAYOFFS?! I just hope we can win a game!

ljkkjlcm9

01-05-2007, 04:36 AM

Can I just say, in the redzone, Patriots are #1 in defense and #2 in offense in the league. Whoever says they aren't strong is kidding themselves.

Plus they'll be getting a number of their hurt players back... the Patriots will at least have great games as far as they go.

BTW, the Colts are going to get run all over by the Chiefs. I honestly think they have no chance.

Giants suck, they're going nowhere.

I had high hopes for the cowboys for one reason, the replacement of Drew Bledsoe leading the team to victory. Tom Brady did it, and I SOOOO wanted Romo to do it. Bledsoe is an overrated sack of crap who never deserved to be anywhere. He has a super bowl ring though... too bad Brady won it for him.

My best bet is....
Chiefs win
Pats win
Eagles win
Seatle vs Dallas is the toughest choice... Seatle sadly

as for superbowl...
New Orleans vs... idk AFC teams are a lot better, especially in recent years

THE JACKEL

THE JACKEL

Bloodline666

01-05-2007, 06:22 AM

I had high hopes for the cowboys for one reason, the replacement of Drew Bledsoe leading the team to victory. Tom Brady did it, and I SOOOO wanted Romo to do it. Bledsoe is an overrated sack of crap who never deserved to be anywhere. He has a super bowl ring though... too bad Brady won it for him.

Bledsoe was fortunate enough to be associated with the Patriots becoming a perennial playoff contender to begin with. Seeing as how he got sacked a lot and threw a lot of interceptions in recent years, leads me to believe that the only reason he was ever great in New England is because of his offensive line.

Bledsoe may have a Super Bowl ring; but the fact of the matter is, the only time he ever tried to win one on his own, he was severely beaten by the team I like to call the "Cheeseheads".

Speaking of Romo and Bledsoe, I found this hilarious spoof site that's allegedly Drew Bledsoe's blog. (http://www.tonyhomo.com) It's not really Bledsoe's blog, though, but it's hilarious nonetheless.

edczxcvbnm

01-05-2007, 06:54 AM

the green bay game really meant nothing, why would chicago play all out for nothing? not like they were going to go undefeated or something. but still san fran sucks and seattle lost to them, that's no worse then losing to miami who beats good teams but plays for :skull::skull::skull::skull: against :skull::skull::skull::skull:ty teams.

Because teams always try to win. Detroit won their last game which in turn means they no longer have the top draft pick. Same with San Fran. Just because you are have a guaranteed A going into the final exam doesn't mean you don't try and turn in an F exam because it doesn't matter.

Raistlin

01-05-2007, 07:18 AM

And Chicago was desperately trying to put something together to give their offense some confidence going into the playoffs. I saw their starters on the field - well, until Grossman was pulled for sucking. He should've been pulled weeks ago.

but still san fran sucks and seattle lost to them, that's no worse then losing to miami who beats good teams but plays for against ty teams.

This is what I call "irrational home bias." You're still an amateur though; I suggest you talk to Kirobaito. San Francisco had a better record than Detroit or Miami - the two losing teams which Chicago lost to at home. Losing to Arizona is inexcusable, but then, Chicago was a last-second missed field goal from doing the same (and definitely didn't deserve the win).

Bloodline666

01-05-2007, 07:19 AM

Because teams always try to win. Detroit won their last game which in turn means they no longer have the top draft pick. Same with San Fran. Just because you are have a guaranteed A going into the final exam doesn't mean you don't try and turn in an F exam because it doesn't matter.

Which turns to the question: WHY DO WE PLAY FOOTBALL?!

The answer:
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/sports/edwards_herman0108.jpg
"YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" (www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I)

Speaking of the man above, his playoff record states that he's undefeated against head coaches he has previously worked for, and winless against those he has not. His playoff winless streak against coaches he has not worked for may be snapped, given Indy's 32nd-ranked Run defense (and as we all know, there's only 32 flavors in the NFL).

edczxcvbnm

01-05-2007, 07:35 AM

Oh :skull::skull::skull::skull:. When I said san fran above I meant the Raiders but they lost. I got them confused because san fran has sucked pretty bad the last few years as well >_<

I agree with his insane comments(the jets coach above) but sometimes people need to be reminded of that because they believe teams lay down because a game doesn't matter or you will get a better draft pick if you lose.

There are very few teams that I can recall have actually laid down and let the other team win...and it cost them big time. Most recent example is Indy last year. 14-0 and then they pretty much rested their starters for4 weeks and expected them to perform like the other 14 wins in the playoffs. NO! Not even close.

Strider

01-05-2007, 06:13 PM

Hey now. :( We knocked Denver out of the playoffs, thanks.

Let's not forget that Chicago has homefield advantage and two pretty decent running backs. Thomas Jones had a good year (1200 yards), although it was kinda hard to notice with Sexy Rexy falling in love with the deep ball. Cedric Benson has come on strong in the second half of the season as well. If I'm right and Seattle ends up traveling to Soldier Field, don't forget that the Bears absolutely crushed the Seahawks in Week 4. The only thing I worry about in that potential matchup is how the Bears D-line will slow down Shaun Alexander with no Tommie Harris and maybe no Tank Johnson.

Raistlin

01-05-2007, 08:10 PM

... did you just call Grossman "Sexy Rexy"?

escobert

01-05-2007, 08:27 PM

You've never heard of Sexy Rexy? :bigsmile:

m4tt

01-05-2007, 10:24 PM

Chargers vs Saints in the superbowl. It's destiny. ;)

ljkkjlcm9

01-05-2007, 10:45 PM

Chargers vs Saints in the superbowl. It's destiny. ;)

well done picking the two highest favored teams... that takes real talent

Anyways, I was saying Bledsoe sucks and was never good, even in New England. He never did crap in New England and I don't know why he was ever considered good.

THE JACKEL

Strider

01-06-2007, 06:14 AM

... did you just call Grossman "Sexy Rexy"?Clearly, you've never experienced the wonders of Kissing Suzy Kolber.

Bloodline666

01-06-2007, 11:14 PM

Once again, Peyton Manning has proven himself a playoff choker! Adam Vinatieri, and the supposedly WEAK Indy run defense is what's keeping the Colts ahead.

Speaking of the Colts, I like that Coors Light commercial that has Indy's last head coach re-enacting his "Playoffs?!" tirade! Hilarious!

EDIT: Okay, I was wrong about Peyton Manning...for one drive, at least. But now, after the KC offense basically slacked off for 3 quarters of play, now we've got ourselves a serious game! Now it's up to Peyton to not choke on this drive.

ljkkjlcm9

01-06-2007, 11:57 PM

Well the Chiefs are out and Indi moves on... unless Kansas City pulls off a miracle... which is unlikely considering they were just interecepted.

THE JACKEL

Bloodline666

01-07-2007, 12:31 AM

The Chiefs have GONE FISHIN'! That's one down, three to go for this weekend! I hope to God that the Seahawks are next!

Tavrobel

01-07-2007, 04:14 AM

Cowboys/Seahawks.

LMAO ROMO

Raistlin

01-07-2007, 04:34 AM

So far 2-for-2 this playoffs! Let's see if I can pick them all correctly.

Unlikely, since I'm stubbornly holding onto my Jets over Patriots pick. I hate the Patriots. But maybe I can pick the rest right.

ljkkjlcm9

01-07-2007, 04:34 AM

silly Romo, he may have just ruined his career... just because you replaced Bledsoe does not make you Tom Brady... sigh

THE JACKEL

Tavrobel

01-07-2007, 04:39 AM

Yes, but the thing about Brady is that he is the product of his surrounding cast. Romo has no such (major) advantage.

Crushed Hope

01-07-2007, 04:46 AM

I've got just five things to day.

1. Indy's defence DOMINATED today, what the hell is up with that, damn they SHUT DOWN the run.

2. Addai is amazing.

3. Owens is a bum.

4. Harrison is a bum.

5. Goddamn what a day, even though I'm not doing good fantasy wise it was a fucking awesome game day.

ljkkjlcm9

01-07-2007, 05:21 AM

El Bandito

01-07-2007, 06:14 AM

Yes, but the thing about Brady is that he is the product of his surrounding cast.

And that's why the Patriots still went 12-4 with a nearly completely new (and honestly not so talented) receiving core, right? I mean, I really don't like Tom Brady, but I'll admit he's a damn good QB.

And oh look, the people who predicted LJ would "easily" go over 150 against the Colts today were only over a hundred off. I still think Baltimore will beat them next week, but the desire that the D and their run offense is showing is starting to look a little scary.

Also, the Seahawks continue to unimpress me. For such a talent-laden offense, they've been looking really flat on that side lately. Babineax came to play on D though.

To end, I don't get how you can hate so bad on San Fran. Alex Smith is looking better, Arnaz Battle and Antonio Bryant are underrated young WR's, Vernon Davis is still an athletic freak, and oh right, there's this youngin named Frank "The Tank" Gore who rushed for over 1600 yards with a 5.4 YPC average (higher than LJ and LT). They have all the makings to develop into an explosive offense. If they can string together a decent defense in the draft and free agency this offseason, I wouldn't take them lightly next year.

Bloodline666

01-07-2007, 06:57 AM

Yes, but the thing about Brady is that he is the product of his surrounding cast. Romo has no such (major) advantage.
The funny thing is, none of them were considered good until after they won with Brady. Bledsoe had the same people for years, was considered great, and never did crap.

THE JACKAL

Okay, to Bledsoe's credit, while he was at New England, he DID have three seasons of 4,000+ passing yards (which only a few other quarterbacks have done, some before him, some since), and did lead his team to Super Bowl XXXI, but Brett Favre proved to be the better QB (also factor in that Bledsoe had to deal with the late Reggie White, who was THE sack master back in the day). And, I'd also like to point out that in the season Brady took over for Bledsoe due to injury, Brady was injured in the AFC Championship Game, obviously leaving Bledsoe to take over for the rest of the game. The Pats won that game. So technically, Bledsoe took the Pats to another SB. When word got out that Brady was healthy enough to play in the SB against the Rams, that created a quarterback controversy in the two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl (much like the quarterback controversy that had been created that season), and Belichick stuck with his hot hand as he had throughout that season, which was Brady. Bledsoe's career, as we all know, went dowhill since then.

And frankly, as for Bledsoe's latest replacement, I feel that Romo's run on the botched FG hold probably should have been ruled a first down and not a turnover on downs, because a) he was down BEFORE he lost control of the ball (such was the ruling on the field), and b) when he was down, the ball had crossed the 1 yard line, which was where they needed to get to in order to get the first down to begin with. So that was a pretty iffy call right there.

Kirobaito

01-07-2007, 07:11 AM

ljkkjlcm9

01-07-2007, 07:18 AM

The point that Bledsoe took over in that game, the Pats were already leading, he just had to not lose the lead. Bledsoe may have been this great QB according to people, but having been a Pats fan since I was born, my dad having season tickets for almost 40 years now, and he never won crap. I'm sorry, say Peyton Manning is the best QB, and I'll laugh. Who cares what your stats are if you never win the big game. Good sure, but not this amazing QB they make him to be. I'd take Brady over him any day, because Brady has proven he can win the big games, even down at the wire.

THE JACKEL

El Bandito

01-07-2007, 07:23 AM

I'm guessing you're not a big Dan Marino fan then?

ljkkjlcm9

01-07-2007, 07:26 AM

I'm guessing you're not a big Dan Marino fan then?

Nope not at all... I'm a Pats fan, we don't like the Dolphins or those associated with them.

THE JACKEL

Bloodline666

01-07-2007, 07:29 AM

And frankly, I feel that Romo's run on the botched FG hold probably should have been ruled a first down and not a turnover on downs, because a) he was down BEFORE he lost control of the ball (such was the ruling on the field), and b) when he was down, the ball had crossed the 1 yard line, which was where they needed to get to in order to get the first down to begin with. So that was a pretty iffy call right there.
He was down at the 2. Not a first down. He was down before he lost control of the ball. His knee touched down before the rest of his body did. I would have liked to have seen somebody get in the endzone though for a possible TD catch on that play, though. Can't count on that to happen, though.

I honestly don't think there was enough evidence on the field to overturn the spot of the ball on the previous play, though. If anything, the new spot was waaaaay too far the other way.

I'm also very ticked about the numerous holding calls on Cowboys defensive backs that were not there, and the PI call in the endzone that was just a pathetic call. Yes, they stopped them on 4th down that possession, but I was also reminded of the last time such a play happened, when they got safetied also, in the Washington game. I also thought Glenn didn't make the catch in the first place. But such is life. If Fate wants to do that, then so be it. I thought I'd feel a lot worse than I do. It's not like we were going to beat the Bears or Saints, anyway. But it really sucks to lose on such fluke plays. I would have been fine had we actually gotten beat, but we had to beat ourselves. And so it goes, I guess.

Well, I most certainly feel your pain. But as Cowboys fans, you and I need to look at it this way; this gives T.O. an opportunity to finally get surgery on his hand, and gives him a whole...what, six, seven months to recover before training camp? It also allows Greg Ellis that same amount of time to recover from HIS injury (we were certainly missing HIM for the last four weeks). And most importantly, it gives us that same six or seven months to at the very least trade Bledsoe away and get us a new backup (HOPEFULLY not Testaverde again; with him, he'll just pass it to Lito Sheppard, and say "But his jersey didn't look green to me; I could've sworn his jersey was white. I even saw the blue numbers on it!" Not that I have anything against colorblind people, but that is CERTAINLY a liability at the QB position.) And most importantly, I look at this as just another learning experience for such a young QB like Tony Romo. Now I know what Parcells meant by "But we've still got ways to go here, so put the anointing oil away."

The point that Bledsoe took over in that game, the Pats were already leading, he just had to not lose the lead. Bledsoe may have been this great QB according to people, but having been a Pats fan since I was born, my dad having season tickets for almost 40 years now, and he never won crap. I'm sorry, say Peyton Manning is the best QB, and I'll laugh. Who cares what your stats are if you never win the big game. Good sure, but not this amazing QB they make him to be. I'd take Brady over him any day, because Brady has proven he can win the big games, even down at the wire.

THE JACKAL

I stand corrected then. I just looked up his post-season win/loss record on his Wikipedia article, and that should prove enough about him; 3-3. Perhaps I should've rooted for the Cheeseheads in Super Bowl XXXI, like my parents did. Besides, I never was a Pats fan, so that shows how much I know about Bledsoe's career there. :confused:

Del Murder

01-07-2007, 08:50 AM

KB you're awesome.

That was a great game to watch. Awesome finish.

escobert

01-07-2007, 10:38 AM

wow, I can't believe Dallas lost... wow I thought they'd be going atleast to the NFC championship.

ljkkjlcm9

01-07-2007, 09:17 PM

Well another great game for the Pats, on to San Diego. That should be a great game.

Giants v Eagles.... I honestly can't believe the Giants have a chance of winning

THE JACKEL

Crushed Hope

01-07-2007, 09:49 PM

Well another great game for the Pats, on to San Diego. That should be a great game.

Giants v Eagles.... I honestly can't believe the Giants have a chance of winning

THE JACKAL

Yeah, seriously. Giants have no chance.

All I know is that I want Westbrook to run alot today :) Fantasy leagues, make me biased against even the teams I want to win haah.

charliepanayi

01-08-2007, 08:45 AM

Well for a team that had 'no chance', the Giants didn't do too badly in the end, though on balance Philadelphia probably deserved the win.

m4tt

01-08-2007, 02:55 PM

Chargers vs Saints in the superbowl. It's destiny. ;)

well done picking the two highest favored teams... that takes real talent

Yeah, I picked my favorite team, and the team that one of my favorite players went to. I didn't realize I was so talented.

ffxatticus

01-08-2007, 11:13 PM

3 of my wild card picks were right. freaking LJ only got 12 carries.

I'm going with pats over charger, baltimore over indy, saints over eagles, seahawks over bears.

I'm just feeling lucky with the pats pick.

Baltimore with control the game.

Saints are too much of a power to loose.

The Seahawks will win on a rex grossman pick

edczxcvbnm

01-08-2007, 11:42 PM

I unsurpisingly went 1-3 in the first round. I went for the under dog KC over Indy and I refuse to give the Patriots any credit.

Lets see how I do in round 2.

Pats lose
Bears lose

Those are my two not giving them any credit picks :D

Now for the other two.

Saints win
Baltimore win

ljkkjlcm9

01-09-2007, 12:19 AM

No one gives the Patriots any credit, ever, which is absurd.

Pat over Chargers
Baltimore over Indy
Saints over Eagles
Bears over Seahawks

Let's see, I went 2-2, I thought KC would win, and Dallas should have won...

THE JACKEL

Crushed Hope

01-09-2007, 01:10 AM

No one gives the Patriots any credit, ever, which is absurd.

Hahahahahahahaha, the Pats are one of the most hyped teams in the league in the past ten years or more.

ljkkjlcm9

01-09-2007, 02:24 AM

No one gives the Patriots any credit, ever, which is absurd.

Hahahahahahahaha, the Pats are one of the most hyped teams in the league in the past ten years or more.

Most hyped teams huh... no the Colts are... at least the Pats have won... 3 superbowls, wth has Indy done?

THE JACKEL

Raistlin

01-09-2007, 02:35 AM

Too bad the Pats aren't playing Indy. Then I might actually have to pick them to win.

El Bandito

01-09-2007, 06:50 AM

Most hyped teams huh... no the Colts are... at least the Pats have won... 3 superbowls, wth has Indy done?

THE JACKAL

Feh, all I heard since the season ended was various reasons the Colts suck. Now that they beat Kansas City, those same people are trying to blame Herm Edwards for the loss.

Let's put it this way, during the season, everyone would throw a hissy fit if Peyton played bad. Brady plays bad? He's just having a bad game. He'll be better next week. Don't try to tell me the Patriots aren't media darlings.

After Wild Card Weekend, it's always hard to look past the teams that just won since they seem to gain all that momentum, but I think in the AFC the original contenders will come out on top. I expect the Ravens and Chargers to go to the AFC Championship and play a classic.

As for the NFC, I can honestly say every team left has a shot. If I had to pick one, I'd say the Eagles definitely look like the most complete of the bunch. I see them coming up big and stopping Brees just enough to edge out a victory over the Saints. As for the Seahawks, they're lucky to still be in the playoffs. Even with the Bears QB problems, they'll most likely just pound the ball down Seattle's throat. The only suspect thing is the somewhat leaky run defense the Bears have been playing without their starting DT's. I still pick the Bears to win, but I see Seattle keeping it closer than everyone expects.

Strider

01-09-2007, 07:52 AM

Well, Herm Edwards is an awful coach. Where in the world was Damon Huard?

I think Brady has earned himself the benefit of the doubt, owing greatly to his Super Bowl victories. And considering the personnel that Brady has to work with, Dillon and Maroney aside, his consistency is amazing.

The Captain

01-09-2007, 02:39 PM

I think the winner of the Chargers - Pats game will end up winning the Super Bowl as they have the two most feared players: LDT (I refuse to call him LT) and Mr. Tom Brady. If the Pats can scheme the Chargers correctly and force Rivers into a few mistakes, I think they can pull off the win, and I'm not even close to being sold on Marty in the postseason. A win against the Pats would go a long way to erasing some doubts about his coaching ability.

Can the Colts D possibly repeat such a dominating performance two weeks in a row? Common wisdom says no, and if Peyton Manning has another game like he did last week against the Ravens, he'll have plenty of time to film more commercials as he'll be done yet again.

The Seahawks are very lucky to be where they are, and though I have absolutely no trust in Grossman (Living up to his name of late), the Bears D and special teams are the most dominate of the units in the game and should tilt this in their favor.

Eagles - Saints looks very entertaining, but with the loss of Sheppard, I think Drew Brees can pick apart Philly's secondary now and that could be the difference. I'd be interested to see if Westbrook can keep up his pace, and he could be keep it close. Also, I have to say, I have to hand it to Andy Reid and the Eagles, they've proven time and again that they can play hurt and still rebound despite losing so many key players including McNabb. Every season, save for last, they seem like they're left for dead and somehow always find ways to advance. This year though, I don't think they can keep up offensively.

Some final thoughts on the two 'New York' Teams: The Jets future is very bright and if they draft well, I think they could challenge the Pats next year. Pennington, for all his lack of arm strength, makes up for it in other ways, but I'm beginning to wonder, how many years does he have left? I think he's got at least two productive years left, pending injury, but I think before too long, it might be time to start seeing what the slew of young QB's on the bench have to offer.

The Giants need a lot of help. Coughlin needs to be fired because of one thing and one thing alone: Lack of discipline. He came in preaching it, but watching the Giants commit penalty after pentality, including that unforgiveable stretch in last week's game where they committed three straight penalties, makes it clear he's in over his head. Losing Barber hurts a lot, but they need to figure out Manning. Jacobs can be a capable replacement for Barber, but until Manning finds some level of consistency, they could have Jim Brown in the backfield and would still need help. Eli has a world of talent and can make plenty of plays, but he still needs to put it all together, especially in his mechanics and decision making. The Giants will give him another two years but unless he turns it up a notch or finds the ability to play like he did to start the year, his career might be another in the long line of unfulfilled promise.

So, to sum up:

Pats: 24 Chargers: 21
Ravens: 28 Colts: 20
Bears: 17 Seahawks: 13
Saints: 34 Eagles: 20

Take care all.

Bloodline666

01-11-2007, 05:37 AM

Okay, remember the botched Tony Romo FG hold on Saturday?

I just found out today that it has sparked a controversy over the "K-balls." (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/16423273.htm) Punters and placekickers have been complaining to anyone with the patience to listen since the K-ball rule was established in 1999, but it took a botched FG hold from a well-known name for the complaints to get media attention. I'm pretty certain the "K-ball" issue will be a hot topic of debate once the competition committee meets during the offseason.

edczxcvbnm

01-11-2007, 06:59 AM

Bloodline666

01-11-2007, 07:07 AM

After reading the article I don't think it will be that big of an issue. How many botched snaps and places are there a year? It has got to be less than 1%.

Those players might complain but I don't see this sort of thing happening often enough to the point where a change would be necessary.

You've got a good point there. However, this particular incident does draw some red flags here as to how slippery that ball was, because Tony Romo has been the holder for extra point/field goals since the middle of the 2004 season, and up until that playoff game, he has been perfect at holding the ball for the extra points and field goals; it never even happened in practice.

And only two weeks earlier, the same thing happened in the Broncos/Bengals game on the Bengals' extra point attempt that would've forced overtime. However, since the game was being played in Denver right after that city had a big-ass snow storm, and it was an outdoor stadium, the weather was also a factor.

edczxcvbnm

01-11-2007, 07:56 AM

Bloodline666

01-11-2007, 03:58 PM

I will counter this by saying that Romo now has been playing with a different feeling ball for a whole game and for lots of games before this one. I think he just messed up. Not everyone is perfect all the time and it a big pressure game I think it is possible that is slipped his mind that this particular ball is slipperier than a normal ball.

I was going to mention the Denver game but then I remembered what the weather was like.

I think it will get some talk but when they take a look at the % of misplacements and botched snaps compared to the past and take a look at the number of kick off returns compared to touchbacks in a similar time frame compared to the past and decide that the rule is still a good one.

Maybe if the teams didn't mess with the kick off ball and stuff in the first place then there would not be a need for this kind of rule. They kind of dug their own grave.

I have read that the Cowboys players are saying that it was more of a mental error on Romo's part than the ball. Ironically, however, David Akers, placekicker of one of the Cowboys' NFC East rivals, the Philadelphia Eagles (which two NFC East teams AREN'T rivals? That whole division is one of the fiercest rivalries in all of sports) is complaining about it. Even more ironic about that is that Akers made the game-winning field goal against the Giants the day after Romo had the botched snap. That kinda speaks volumes about the K-Ball.

But you are right that the dumbass kickers who put their balls in the microwave oven and/or the drying machine did ruin it for everyone. (Who the hell would put a football in the microwave, anyway?)

Now I do have to commend Romo for his courage on that play. Most kick holders would've either gotten tackled before they even got a chance to pick the ball back up and do something with it, or just given up on that play altogether. Romo picked up that ball and ran for it (as stated earlier, it needed to cross the 1 for a first down), only to get smacked one yard shy of the first down. And I can understand how sad he sounded in the post-game interview; he took it upon his shoulders to try and win the game for the Cowboys, and he choked. But the way I see it, choking in the process of trying to win the game...sure beats the hell out of just giving up altogether. He was lucky enough to get one final shot at winning the game; T.O. alluded to this and compared it to the playoff game he played where he dropped a lot of passes, but caught the game-winning touchdown pass in the final seconds to redeem himself (thus proving that sometimes, it's what you do at the end that counts the most).

Now Dallas is uncertain of their future at the head coaching spot. I'd like to point out that should Bill Parcells step down, he will be the first head coach in Cowboys history to voluntarily resign the head coaching job (all other Cowboys head coaches were fired by Jerry Jones). However, at this point, I think the Cowboys need Parcells back for at least one more season, primarily for two reasons. One, he seems to always keep the human soap opera that is T.O. in check (he even shuts the media up if they ask "What do you think of this latest T.O. scandal?" or "What's the latest on T.O.?"); he obviously doesn't want it to be a media distraction or a locker room distraction to the team. And two, I like the way he handles Tony Romo's ego; whenever Romo's on fire, he'll tell the media to "put the anointion oil away" (that's a direct quote from him, by the way), and whenever Romo has a bad game, he's got this way of making sure Romo doesn't get down on himself too much, though Romo couldn't help but do so after Saturday's loss because it was a playoff game. But I'm not so certain how much longer he'll be coaching. There were rumors that he was in negotiations with his first NFL employer, the New York Giants, for a job as GM, but both Parcells and the Giants have denied them.

And speaking of the Giants, I think they made a big mistake by keeping Tom Coughlin. His players clearly showed a lack of discipline in their last 9 games, and as a result, went from "Ballin'" to "BAWLIN'" (injuries factored into it, also, but that's beyond the control of the coach). And we all know whose responsibility it is to keep those players disciplined enough to not lead the league in personal foul penalties; the head coach's.

Del Murder

01-12-2007, 03:12 AM

I once knew a guy named K-ball.

These games are hard to pick, well, except Baltimore. And Chicago will likely flatten Seattle.

escobert

01-12-2007, 10:14 AM

unless sexy rexy decides he needs to impress the ladies :(

Strider

01-12-2007, 06:09 PM

Come on, Bert, he already does impress the ladies! ;)

Anyway, my takes:

This Philadelphia-New Orleans matchup strikes me as very intriguing. How are the Eagles going to stop this offense? Losing Lito Shepard hurts, since you've basically got four guys you need to worry about through the air: Devery Henderson, Joe Horn, Marques Colston and (likely) Reggie Bush. And Jim Johnson might think about scaling back his blitzing, or else Drew Brees will pick him apart.

The other thing to note is the short turnaround for the Eagles, having played on Sunday last weekend and is now playing on Saturday this week. The last team to do this, the 2003 Pittsburgh Steelers, lost in overtime after having played a thriller against Cleveland. Does that sound familiar to you? New Orleans 27, Philadelphia 20

I really really really don't like this Seattle squad. And now they're on the road, in the cold against a top-level defense with a shaky Matt Hasselbeck and a still-recovering Shaun Alexander? Sexy Rexy will get his, he always does, but I suspect the Bears will run the ball right at the Seahawks defense and manhandle them with Jones and Benson. Bears 24, Seahawks 10

Does anyone remember what happened the last time Peyton Manning faced a top-notch defense in January? The Colts got beaten. And the time before? They got beaten. And the time before that? Yeah, you get the point. I'd expect Baltimore to focus on stopping Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes and dare Manning to beat them. He wasn't that impressive last week, and the Ravens are much better on defense.

Jamal Lewis may not be the same running back he was a few years ago, but he should be able to get enough yards to keep the Colts honest. I suspect McNair and company will sneak up on Indy and get a couple of breaks. Then again, they might not need 'em, anyway. Ravens 17, Colts 9

New England and San Diego... I've been giving a lot of thought to this one, and it's tough. If you were to look at the numbers of the Chargers' last playoff game, they should've ran away with it, but Marty Schottenheimer coached scared in those last few minutes. Now his squad, while highly talented, is going up against the best head coach in the NFL. Hmm.

Tomlinson touched the ball 35 times in that last playoff game, and it still wasn't enough. Philip Rivers is making his first playoff start, I think that'll be the difference in the end one way or the other. Belicheck, on the other hand, might try and spread the San Diego defense out with a lot of 4 and 5-WR sets and attempt to make Shawn Merriman a non-factor. In the end, it'll be on Brady and Rivers, but I think the new guy has enough moxie to utilize his weapons and keep his team going forward. Chargers 28, Patriots 24

Bloodline666

01-12-2007, 08:22 PM

My predictions, and who I'm rooting for, are two separate things in certain games.

Indy/Baltimore - It is interesting to note that this is the first playoff game the Colts have played in the city of Baltimore since relocating to Indianapolis, so I think the fans in Baltimore may be split in this game (since there's the possibility of old-school Colts fans still living in Baltimore who are still loyal to their former NFL team). Indy shocked the world when they beat LJ and the Chiefs last week. Their run defense was ranked 32nd in the league this season (and there's only 32 flavors in the NFL, as I stated earlier), and they were able to stop the run, something they haven't been able to do all season; that was the part that shocked the world, not the mere fact that the Colts won. Stopping the run was their achilles heel on DEFENSE. Now, the Colts have to deal with their achilles heel on OFFENSE this week; the 3-4 defense. During the Regular Season, the Colts were the last undefeated team in the NFL. The first team to beat them this season was the Dallas Cowboys. Guess which type of defense the Cowboys use? The 3-4 defense. The Ravens have the same type of defense. And Joseph Addai will have to deal with Ray Lewis. (by the way, sometimes I keep calling the Ravens the Colts because of the fact that the Colts used to play in Baltimore).

My prediction: Ravens
I'm rooting for: Ravens

New England/San Diego - Tom Brady has been one hell of a quarterback throughout the course of his career. But I doubt he's gonna avoid getting sacked by the likes of "Lights Out" (who I think should never have made the Pro Bowl to begin with; good thing he got snubbed for Defensive Player of the Year). And I don't think New England's defense has what it takes to stop LT 2 (I call LaDainian Tomlinson "LT 2" so I don't get him mixed up with the original LT, Lawrence Taylor). My best guess as the best way for New England to stop LaDainian is to treat him like a scrambling QB, since he is a damn good passer, too.

My prediction: Chargers
I'm rooting for: Chargers (I'd like to see LaDainian vs. Ray Lewis in the AFC Championship Game, so I can see LaDainian try to prove himself against one of the best Linebackers in the league, and see if Ray Lewis and the Ravens D truly are as good as people say they are)

Seattle/Chicago - Personally, I think whoever wins this game will win on a fluke. Chicago's offense sucks, and Seattle's offense was only able to get past Dallas' defense because the Cowboys' secondary had been slacking off the last 5 games (some fellow Dallas fans I talked to said that happened because the D-line and linebackers have not been rushing the passer very much). Also, I think Seattle had help from the zebras on that fumble that was originally ruled a TD, but upon Parcells' challenge flag, was ruled a Safety. See, when Terry Glenn caught that ball, and then put it down on the ground, his knee went down, and I did not notice that until I saw NFL Total Access on NFL Network where the NFL Total Access crew interviewed the chief of NFL officiating. And if I'm not mistaken, the rule is, if a player has control of the ball, and any part of his body other than his hands or feet touches the ground, the player is down. Not to mention the controversial K-ball thing.

Anywho, Seattle/Dallas game aside, I think this game's all gonna come down to special teams and defense. Seattle's secondary was so shorthanded that they had to sign guys from the street to fill in those positions (one of which was attending school to become a border patrol agent in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area), so I doubt those guys are as well educated in the game of football as everyone else on the field (a weakness Dallas failed to exploit, which was another factor that cost them the Wild Card game). Now Rex Grossman is inconsistent, but he does have the defense and special teams (Devin Hester, anyone?) to pick up the slack.

The Seahawks also have 2 curses going against them; the Madden Curse (Shaun Alexander) and the Campbell's Chunky Soup curse (Matt Hasselbeck)

My prediction: Bears
I'm rooting for: Bears (I traditionally root AGAINST teams that eliminate my favorite team from the playoffs, teams that beat my favorite team in regular season games with playoff implications, and rivals of my favorite team; Seattle falls in the category of "teams that eliminated my favorite team from the playoffs", even though my ex-girlfriend, who I'm still friends with, is a Seahawks fan)

Philly/New Orleans - Well, this game looks like it's gonna come down to who performs the best offensively. Both Brees and Garcia have the weapons they need to win this one. And I think this one's gonna be decided by the running game; I think whoever gains the most yards on the ground between Brian Westbrook, and the twin-headed snake that is Deuce McAllister and Reggie "The President" Bush, is going to win this game for the team. This game is going down to the wire, I can tell you that right now.

My prediction: Eagles
I'm rooting for: Saints

charliepanayi

01-13-2007, 11:23 PM

Got to say, so far Vinatieri has really been on fire against Baltimore, Indianapolis aren't doing a bad job at the moment *famous last words*

Crushed Hope

01-14-2007, 02:46 AM

Got to say, so far Vinatieri has really been on fire against Baltimore, Indianapolis aren't doing a bad job at the moment *famous last words*

Indy and Baltimore both played like :skull::skull::skull::skull: on offence.

escobert

01-14-2007, 04:17 AM

That was a good game tonight. Good job Saints! See you next week ;)

Bloodline666

01-14-2007, 04:53 AM

Okay, this season, quarterback controversies have erupted in Dallas, Denver, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C., and quite possibly Chicago, New York (with the Giants, not the Jets), Cleveland, Carolina, and Kansas City.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard Steve Mariucci say on NFL GameDay that Jeff Garcia probably signed a 1-year contract when he signed with the Eagles. If that is not true, or if it is true and Garcia decides to re-sign with the Eagles, then the Eagles are GUARANTEED to start off next season with QUARTERBACK CONTROVERSY written all over it. Donovan McNabb makes WAY too much money to be a back-up, and if Andy Reid decides to employ the 1971 Tom Landry QB strategy that was used at the start of the Cowboys' 1971 season, it will only make the QB Controversy worse, as was the case with the Cowboys' Craig Morton/Roger Staubach controversy, and like Landry, who ended up naming Staubach the starting QB for the rest of that season, Reid will be forced to pick the starting QB between Garcia and McNabb. And rest assured, one of the two will get the starting job, while the other will end up on the trading block, because having McNabb as the back-up is a waste of money for the Eagles. And I'm pretty certain that the Philly fans, who, by the way, have a reputation of being among the absolute most outspoken (and historically most volatile) fans in the NFL, will be split on the controversy, as will the Philly locker room. Should this quarterback controversy erupt in Philly, I'm almost certain that there will be infighting in the locker room, as well as in the stands at Lincoln Financial Field, not to mention become a major distraction, a la the Terrell Owens circus from last season. That being said, the Eagles organization is better off answering the respective questions of McNabb's future and Garcia's future in Philly as early in the off-season as humanly possible.

escobert

01-14-2007, 05:07 AM

and it's not like either of them is a young quarter back so who knows how much longer they really have until they either bog down or get hurt.

Bloodline666

01-14-2007, 05:30 AM

Now as for Andy Reid...what I fail to understand is this; he went for it on 4th and 10, like, right after the 2-minute warning, or something like that, and converted, only for that to be negated by a False Start penalty that pushed them back 5 yards. Why the HELL did he not go for it on 4th and 15, when he just happens to be the EXACT SAME COACH who, only 3 years ago went for it on 4TH AND 26...DOWN BY A FIELD GOAL, ON HIS OWN 25 YARD LINE WITH 1:12 LEFT, and ZERO TIME-OUTS LEFT, FOR THAT MATTER, against the Cheeseheads and CONVERTED SUCCESSFULLY?! Reid had more time remaining, better field position, less yardage to go, 2 time-outs, and the same deficit with which to work with, and yet, he chose NOT to go for it, when he succeeded years earlier under worse conditions. It was after the 2-minute warning, so all the Saints had to do was waste Philly's remaining time-outs, convert for the 1st down, and take the knee every 35-40 seconds, regardless of their field position.

On the other hand, however, being a fan of a rival team, I am happy Philadelphia lost. I will be standing by the New Orleans Saints, who last season played 3 home games in my hometown due to Hurricane Katrina, for the next round, as well as Super Bowl XLI, should they win next week. It's weird that, for many, many seasons, Saints fans at the Superdome had been wearing paper grocery bags over their heads with the word "Aints" on it because they've come to accept their own favorite team losing, because that's all they were accustomed to, and now, the Saints have their FIRST first-round bye in franchise history, SECOND post-season win in franchise history, and are in the NFC Championship Game for the FIRST time in franchise history...on the doorstep to their FIRST Super Bowl in franchise history!

WHO DAT?! WHO DAT?! WHO DAT SAY DEY GONNA BEAT DEM SAINTS?!

EDIT: Just when you thought I would shut the hell up about the damn K-Ball controversy...I hate to break it to you, but we have ANOTHER ONE! This time, it's centered around a kicker who complained about the damn K-balls last week with regards to the Romo bobble. It's David Akers, and according to him, the extra point he kicked after the 2nd Eagles touchdown was much heavier than normal. We had a complaint about it because of what happened LAST WEEK! Now that's TWO consecutive weeks of K-Ball bull:skull::skull::skull::skull:! My question is, if the competition committee does make any rule changes regarding the K-ball, who do you think is gonna get the naming rights: Tony Romo, or David Akers? (translation: do you think it'll be called the Tony Romo Rule, or the David Akers Rule?)

escobert

01-14-2007, 09:28 PM

YES!!!!! Gould for a 49 yarder!!!! YESS! Grossman played good and the defense played well for most of the game but did appear to be tired towards the end. YES!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D!!!!!

I Took the Red Pill

01-14-2007, 09:29 PM

Sexy Rexy actually played like a winner for once.

Bloodline666

01-14-2007, 11:37 PM

Had it not been for an "illegal block in the back" penalty on the Bears during a punt return, that game would not have gone into Overtime; whoever committed that penalty caused Devin Hester a punt return for a touchdown to be nullified, but at least the Bears executed when it mattered most.

Next week, it looks like either the Colts/Pats rivalry will continue (with the latest development so far being Vinatieri defecting from the Pats to the Colts), or Peyton Manning will have to avoid Shawne Merriman's sacks, and the Indy run defense will have to step up their game even further than they have the last two games (I highly doubt they can stop LT).

And should the Pats advance, it'll be interesting to see if Vinatieri can beat his old team, given yesterday's Field Goal Bowl.

El Bandito

01-15-2007, 01:55 AM

Why the HELL did he not go for it on 4th and 15, when he just happens to be the EXACT SAME COACH who, only 3 years ago went for it on 4TH AND 26...DOWN BY A FIELD GOAL, ON HIS OWN 25 YARD LINE WITH 1:12 LEFT, and ZERO TIME-OUTS LEFT, FOR THAT MATTER, against the Cheeseheads and CONVERTED SUCCESSFULLY?! Reid had more time remaining, better field position, less yardage to go, 2 time-outs, and the same deficit with which to work with, and yet, he chose NOT to go for it, when he succeeded years earlier under worse conditions. It was after the 2-minute warning, so all the Saints had to do was waste Philly's remaining time-outs, convert for the 1st down, and take the knee every 35-40 seconds, regardless of their field position.

Um, he was forced into that situation of going for it on 4th and 26. If you ask any recent Cheesehead, "4th and 26" is like a swear word to them. Is is so ludicrous to think that your defense (and the Eagles have a good D) can stop a team from getting a first down when you know they'll run it every time? If the defense had stopped them, then they would get the ball back with enough time to have a really good chance to get a field goal. Any coach with any confidence in his D would've punted.

Had it not been for an "illegal block in the back" penalty on the Bears during a punt return, that game would not have gone into Overtime; whoever committed that penalty caused Devin Hester a punt return for a touchdown to be nullified, but at least the Bears executed when it mattered most.

Without that block in the back, Hester would've been hit and tackled or at least slowed down by the first man coming at him. He's amazing, but that guy was coming straight at him and would've been there right before he caught it.

And dammit I almost threw my chair through my TV during the Pats - Chargers game. There were a ton of boneheaded plays by the Bolts that added up cost them the game. Oh well, I'm hoping for a Saints - Colts Superbowl.

edczxcvbnm

01-15-2007, 03:48 AM

FUCK THE GOD DAMN PATRIOTS! I hope they all die in a horrible plane crash on the way to where ever they are going. Assholes.

ljkkjlcm9

01-15-2007, 04:42 AM

What can I say, the pats are a damn good team!

Well I got one wrong, Indy won, when I thought they'd lose... actually no I didn't, I just hoped they'd lose.

Next round,
New Orleans over Chicago
New England over Indy

the superbowl will be "The Battle of the New" haha

THE JACKEL

Bloodline666

01-15-2007, 05:30 AM

smurf THE GOD DAMN PATRIOTS! I hope they all die in a horrible plane crash on the way to where ever they are going. Assholes.

Woah, hold your horses there, buddy! I want New England to lose this next game, too. They are getting dangerously close to breaking the record for most Super Bowl wins, AND most Super Bowl appearances, both of which are held by my favorite team (one of which is tied with two others). And frankly, I have the '72 Dolphins attitude about it! That's exactly why I rooted against the Steelers last year!

Anywho, I'm pulling for a Saints-Colts Super Bowl, and I'm hoping the Vince Lombardi Trophy goes straight to the hurricane-ravaged town!

And as for Shawne Merriman...well, I just found this out on SportsCenter. Right now, negotiations between NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL Player's Union is pending for the enactment of the Shawne Merriman Rule. Under this rule, any player who gets suspended for violating the league's substance abuse policy during the course of the season shall be declared ineligible for that season's Pro Bowl. In addition to that, there is also a possibility that random drug testing will be increased. This after Shawne Merriman was selected for the Pro Bowl, as well as being considered for Defensive Player of the Year, despite the fact that he was suspended for 4 games for testing positive for steroids, which incurred the wrath of many players around the league, including the eventual Defensive Player of the Year, Jason Taylor of the Miami Dolphins. I have another source right here (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-01-14-pro-bowl-steroids_x.htm?csp=34), but it makes no mention of the post season awards stuff. My source for the post season awards stuff was SportsCenter.

The steroid Merriman tested positive for was nandrolone, a natually-occurring substance in the human body in very low amounts. He claimed that it was the result of an over-the-counter tainted nutritional suppliment he had been taking for a year and a half, but he failed to name it. The league has a list of approved nutritional suppliments. I do find a few things wrong with Merriman's claim, though. First, you won't be able to find tainted suppliments at legit places like GNC, because the store could get in big trouble for selling that stuff. Secondly, the fact that he failed to name the suppliment raises obvious questions. And third, if nandrolone is taken orally, it's immediately broken up by the digestive system. The only sure-fire way that nandrolone can enter the bloodstream by outside means is through the needle. I'm most certainly hoping Jason Taylor lobbies the Player's Union to approve the Shawne Merriman Rule in its entirety. I'm counting on him.

Tavrobel

01-15-2007, 02:54 PM

WHO DAT?! WHO DAT?! WHO DAT SAY DEY GONNA BEAT DEM SAINTS?!

(translation: do you think it'll be called the Tony Romo Rule, or the David Akers Rule?)

You totally did not deserve to get that second touchdown. The Saints would've been out at the 1 Yard line, but it was possible we could have made the stop for 3, making the score 24/23 at end, or much, much different.

I say Romo. No government ever makes a law until someone else screws up.

Had it not been for an "illegal block in the back" penalty on the Bears during a punt return, that game would not have gone into Overtime; whoever committed that penalty caused Devin Hester a punt return for a touchdown to be nullified, but at least the Bears executed when it mattered most.

Based on the replay (and commentary, since I left the captions on, so I heard/read everything), they say it was number 24. It didn't seem intentional, but they called him out on it. Good thing the refs didn't say anything.

escobert

01-15-2007, 03:56 PM

It was Ricky Manning Jr who had the black in the back. they even said it durring the game.

Bloodline666

01-15-2007, 11:06 PM

You totally did not deserve to get that second touchdown. The Saints would've been out at the 1 Yard line, but it was possible we could have made the stop for 3, making the score 24/23 at end, or much, much different.

Actually, I'd like to clarify that rule a bit. A similar situation happened in the Saints/Cowboys game (the Week 14 game, not the pre-season one). Here's what happened in that game:

Mike Karney, on a 6-yard rush, lept out of bounds while his feet were inbounds and touched the pylon with the ball. The officials initially ruled the play out of bounds at the 1 yard line, but Sean Payton's coaching staff at the replay booth saw the replay and told him to challenge it. After the referee reviewed the play, he found that Karney's feet were in bounds before he jumped forward, and the ball touched the pylon. For a touchdown to be legal, all that has to happen is, the ball has to cross the plane of the goal line. The rule on that is, basically, the plane of the goal line "goes around the world," meaning, even if the ball is out of bounds when it crosses the plane of the goal line, or even if your feet are out of bounds when they cross the plane of the goal line (provided you're in bounds first), it still counts as a touchdown. I can understand how you disagree with that call (I disagreed with the ruling reversed in that Cowboys game at first, until the "plane of the goal line goes around the world" rule was clarified on the challenge), but at least give the refs some credit for being consistent.

And it is very possible to see a rematch of Super Bowl XX, since the two teams who played that SB are in the Conference Championships; it's also possible that we could see Peyton Manning go up against his favorite team growing up (which just so happens to be the very team his father, Archie, once played for) in the Super Bowl.

Tavrobel

01-15-2007, 11:10 PM

No one ever said it was a very good rule.

Raistlin

01-15-2007, 11:11 PM

I hate that "indefinite plane" rule.

However, to further clarify the rule, I think it states that SOME part of the ball carrier must touch in-bounds, even if it's an empty hand.

Tavrobel

01-15-2007, 11:24 PM

Case in point, they did not deserve that touchdown.

If I said that they didn't get it, it would mean that I would deny that rule its proper unfolding eventage.

Bloodline666

01-15-2007, 11:24 PM

If Reggie Bush was indeed out of bounds before he ran over the pylon, then Andy Reid should've challenged the ruling, since there was still 3 minutes and change before the 2-minute warning (though if the ruling on the field stood, the Eagles would've been charged a time-out; which wouldn't hurt the Eagles, though, since it was still the first half, and they'd get a fresh set of time-outs at Halftime, anyway), since only the officials' replay booth can call for a review inside the two minute warning and the duration of Overtime (coaches throwing the challenge flag inside the 2 minute warning and in overtime get a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty). So if it was the officials' fault for ruling incorrectly, then it's equally Andy Reid's fault for not throwing the challenge flag. He could've saved his team by doing so, but there's a chance it would've delayed the inevitable by about 1-3 plays.

Tavrobel

01-15-2007, 11:26 PM

The sad part is, that your indefinite plane rule still applies, so there's no point in challenging it.

I don't like it, but the rule is a rule. Yet that doesn't mean I can't object to it.

El Bandito

01-15-2007, 11:36 PM

- - - TAURUS - - -

01-15-2007, 11:43 PM

The reffing, was one sided for the Eagles vs. Saints.

Tavrobel

01-15-2007, 11:44 PM

Weirder things have happened.

Bloodline666

01-15-2007, 11:48 PM

As for LaDainian, I can understand why he almost blew up at the Patriots' sideline after the game. I probably would've done the same thing if the opposing team was mocking and/or disrespecting my team and/or teammates at midfield in my team's home turf. Of course, being a Cowboys fan, I'll never forget the time T.O. raced down midfield after his second touchdown and slammed the ball on the Cowboys' star there at Texas Stadium and then-Cowboys safety George Teague slammed him down hard on the turf; I, like most other Cowboys fans, hated him ever since, yet, I never expected him to become a Cowboy later on until the whole soap opera with him and the Eagles last season unfolded (the Eagles even tried to get Jerry Jones in trouble with then-Commissioner Paul Tagliabue for tampering, since Jerry Jones made comments about wanting to get T.O. on the team, and that's when I started to like T.O.). That's what the Patriots mocking Shawne Merriman's "Lights Out" dance at midfield in the Chargers' home field and Tomlinson's subsequent reaction reminded me of.

And since T.O. and George Teague were fined by the league for their respective actions in the Cowboys Star incident, something tells me that the Patriots organization (or at the very least, the players mocking the "Lights Out" dance) and possibly LaDainian are going to get fined by the league for their actions, as well. And knowing how Roger Goodell's been pretty strict about player character in his first year alone as NFL Commissioner, and has subsequently been a hard-ass with regards to enforcement of the rules, the fines are probably going to be stiffer than the fines Owens and Teague received back in 2000.

And while I'm on the subject of the Chargers game, yesterday's loss to the Patriots now makes Marty Schottenheimer's career post-season record 5-13 as a head coach (though it could be worse, percentage-wise. Jim Mora, Sr, the coach famous for his "PLAYOFFS?!" tirade, is 0-6 in the "PLAYOFFS?!"). And from what I've heard from souces such as ESPN's SportsCenter and Adam Shefter from NFL Network, the owner of the Chargers made it clear that, regardless of the Chargers' regular season success, if they did not at the very least make it to Super Bowl XLI, then Schottenheimer would be on the hot seat, with regards to his coaching future with the Chargers. So, despite the regular season success and the number 1 seed in the AFC, Marty Schottenheimer's future with the Chargers doesn't look that good. He has a possibility of being fired within the next month and a half; the Chargers front office clearly wanted an AFC Championship, and nothing less. Obviously, the Chargers have failed to deliver, and as everyone knows, in the world of sports, the head coach usually takes responsibility for it, and is usually the first to pay for failure with his job.

eestlinc

01-17-2007, 07:00 AM

i for one can't believe how the Seahawks came in ready to win and still managed to find a way to lose. Chicago looked bad.

Bloodline666

01-17-2007, 03:56 PM

i for one can't believe how the Seahawks came in ready to win and still managed to find a way to lose. Chicago looked bad.

And Matt Hasselbeck didn't even have to say in the ref's mic, "We want the ball, and we're gonna score" after Seattle won the Overtime coin toss. That's how he jinxed his team the last time he was at midfield for an Overtime coin toss (plus, he choked that time, too, by throwing an interception that was returned for a TD).

Del Murder

01-18-2007, 03:39 AM

In an overtime game in Chicago, I'd almost rather take the wind than the ball. If you have faith in your defense then you should get at least one posession, and that can make all the difference for a kicker.

eestlinc

01-18-2007, 05:32 AM

well, the Seahawks just weren't that good this year, so it's not like they deserved to be in the NFC championship game anyway. But the Bears sucked it up.

escobert

01-18-2007, 03:49 PM

Really, they didn't compared to how they have played. They are missing key players on defense in Tommy Harris and Mike Brown. That's going to slow your defense down a bit and change things up. The run offensive did what it needed, but look for Benson to be getting the ball A LOT more I think. Grossman stepped his game up and played where he should have. I know the Bears can play better but considering how horrid they have played this was a wonderful sight for Bears fans.

edczxcvbnm

01-18-2007, 04:03 PM

People are always saying that Benson should get the ball a lot more but he does not a very good pass blocker. Benson might be a better runner but unless he can pass block well enough then why have him in? So the other team knows that you WILL run the ball? I think he has gotten better at pass blocking but not good enough to have him play the majority of the minutes over Thomas Jones.

escobert

01-18-2007, 04:08 PM

I agree he needs to work on his pass blocking and yes that was pointed out in the last game that you know if Benson is in he's going to get the ball. I mean Jones isn't a bad back at all he's consistant and seems to work hard and shows he plays with a lot of emotion. I fully respect Thomas, since he has done A LOT for this team.

El Bandito

01-20-2007, 02:38 AM

ljkkjlcm9

01-20-2007, 02:52 AM

escobert

01-20-2007, 02:56 AM

Go colts. And oddly enough the ESPN.com AccuScore that runs 10,000 simulations to see the highest winner says chicago 58% to win NO 41%
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/intel?gameId=270121003

ljkkjlcm9

01-20-2007, 03:38 AM

Go colts. And oddly enough the ESPN.com AccuScore that runs 10,000 simulations to see the highest winner says chicago 58% to win NO 41%
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/intel?gameId=270121003

ok then, I'm going for both the underdogs apparently. I'm use to it. Pats weren't favored to beat the Chargers, but they did. Now the Colts are favored, even though we beat the most likely to win the superbowl. My teams are always the underdogs, no matter how well they continue to do.

THE JACKEL

Crushed Hope

01-20-2007, 04:28 PM

Vinatieri shanks the game-winning field goal, rips off his jersey to reveal a Pats jersey, then runs across to the Pats sideline and jumps into Belichick's arms as Jim Nantz screams "Noooooooooo! Noooooooooo!" and Peyton Manning breaks out the greatest Manning Face of all-time. Would I sacrifice three months of my life for this to happen? Yeah, probably.

I'm rooting for the Colts, but wow. That would go down as one of the greatest events in sports ever. I could only imagine the look on Manning's face.
Too bad Vinatieri is shallow and just went for the money. There is no good reason to root for the Colts. I still think they are the most overrated team in the past decade, and Peyton Manning is the most overrated quarterback.

My honest opinion? I'm from New England, but no matter who the Colts play, I want them to lose. But I want New Orleans to win the superbowl, even over the Pats. Basically if the pats and the saints both win, I have a win win superbowl

THE JACKAL

What? No. No. No.

The Colts are far from overrated, in the regular season they have proven time and time again that they are a dominant team. The Playoffs change them, and people realize not to expect them to do amazing. They are very low expectations for them in the playoffs every year.

Manning is one of the best QBs in the league, despite his poor playoff performance. Sure, he doesn't have the rings like Brady does but Dan Marino doesn't have any rings either and he is largely considered one of the best QBs of all time.

escobert

01-20-2007, 07:03 PM

No where near Montana though :p

ljkkjlcm9

01-20-2007, 07:45 PM

Manning is one of the best QBs in the league, despite his poor playoff performance. Sure, he doesn't have the rings like Brady does but Dan Marino doesn't have any rings either and he is largely considered one of the best QBs of all time.
Certianly not by me. If you can't win the big games, it doesn't matter what else you do... seriously.

THE JACKEL

escobert

01-20-2007, 08:11 PM

ljkkjlcm9

01-20-2007, 08:36 PM

I'm just so sick of the pats winning, living in New England and all has sucked the last few football seasons with my entire family saying "ohhhh why not root for a really team!" and "HAHAHAH BEARS ARE THE SUX" I just want chicago to go farther then NE xD
how has it sucked? Alright, maybe I appreciate it more because my dad had season tickets for 35 years to a losing team, and now they're finally good and doing something.

THE JACKEL

escobert

01-20-2007, 08:42 PM

Because I've lived my entire life being a Bears fan and living in a family of Patriot fans who dispise the Bears due to the last Super Bowl match up they had. (Which was the first Bowl I ever saw, hence my love for the Bears) The Bears have had like 2 winnings season since then. Ok maybe more but not many. And every time they do make it to the playoffs they go out asap. And really I think tillman said it best, "If we go this far and lose, who knows when we'll be back here again." Seriously, Lovie Smiths contract is up this year, who knows how long Urlacher and Brown have. They're both getting old Same with Krutz (center) Muhammad only has maybe a season or two left I'd say. I can't see him playing much longer. I amy be wrong but I think we only have this year and maybe next to do something for another 20 years.
Also it's been 21 years since Chicago played in a Super Bowl, and the Patriots have won what 4 in the last 6 or something. 3? whatever, they've done their winning :p

ljkkjlcm9

01-20-2007, 10:00 PM

Del Murder

01-20-2007, 10:21 PM

charliepanayi

01-20-2007, 10:38 PM

I wouldn't say the Patriots winning again would be dull, the three Superbowls they've won in recent years have all been thrilling games. Their presence seems to have some sort of positive influence on the game XD

Raistlin

01-20-2007, 10:41 PM

I'm rooting for New Orleans. Not because I like the Saints, but because I don't like any of the other teams at all - and I actively dislike the Patriots and Peyton Manning.

escobert

01-20-2007, 11:04 PM

It will be kind of boring if the Patriots win again. Also if the Bears win, because that team puts me to sleep. Manning finally making it or New Orleans going from zero to hero would both be great stories.

How do the Bears put you to sleep? I understand not a great offense, btu the defense pulls some crazy :skull::skull::skull::skull: out of their asses.

Strider

01-20-2007, 11:26 PM

It's a shame, though, the defense won't save them tomorrow.

Shaun Alexander was finding some huge holes between the tackles late in the game and in overtime last week, so what's to say Deuce McAllister won't do the same? New Orleans' offensive line has been playing considerably well and, with no Tommie Harris or Mike Brown up the middle, Briggs, Urlacher and Hillenmeyer are going to have plenty on their hands.

I'm still not sold on Rex Grossman being up to the task of making big plays when the Bears need them, either. They should've put the game away late in the 4th quarter when Rex was instead intercepted. And even when they got the ball back following Hasselbeck's INT, they still couldn't punch it in. You think that's really going to change this week?

Meanwhile, Drew Brees was an MVP candidate for a reason. I don't expect it'll be ideal weather for throwing the football, but the short game with guys like Marques Colston and Reggie Bush should work wonders if they get some space. Look for the feel good story to continue. Saints 24, Bears 13

As for the Colts/Patriots tilt... well, I don't have much to say other than that I'm not betting against New England until someone beats them. Patriots 34, Colts 13

El Bandito

01-21-2007, 04:40 AM

I'm rooting for a Colts - Saints Superbowl. Honestly, there hasn't been a good shootout Superbowl in a while. I think that game would deliver.

Del Murder

01-21-2007, 08:41 AM

How do the Bears put you to sleep? I understand not a great offense, btu the defense pulls some crazy :skull::skull::skull::skull: out of their asses.
I just don't find defensive football to be that entertaining to watch.

I wouldn't say the Patriots winning again would be dull, the three Superbowls they've won in recent years have all been thrilling games. Their presence seems to have some sort of positive influence on the game XD
They do have some good games but in the end it's like 'Oh, the Patriots won again. That's nice,' as opposed to 'Wow! Manning finally did it!'

escobert

01-21-2007, 11:04 PM

YES YES YES YES YES! I LOVE YOU GOD!

Strider

01-21-2007, 11:06 PM

Man, where the hell has Deuce McAllister been all day?

escobert

01-21-2007, 11:10 PM

This is awsome, simply awsome! god I'm so friggen happy right now!

ljkkjlcm9

01-21-2007, 11:23 PM

This is awsome, simply awsome! god I'm so friggen happy right now!

sigh... I don't like the bears, I think they'll lose to whoever goes into the Superbowl from the AFC, which is sad, cause I hate the Colts more than anything

THE JACKEL

Crushed Hope

01-22-2007, 12:56 AM

Hell, Colts already lost this game.

ljkkjlcm9

01-22-2007, 01:10 AM

Hell, Colts already lost this game.
naw, the refs kept them in it when the Patriots were going to score again. No fouls the entire game, then suddenly, they lose 15 yards in penalties.
Now, they'll at least get a field goal before tha half, unless Vini misses, which would be funny.

THE JACKEL

ShunNakamura

01-22-2007, 01:34 AM

Wowzers, the Saints got walked over by the bears.

Shoot, I was hopping the Saints would win.

Anyways I hope Patriots rip the colts apart(never did like the colts and I have been a Patriots fan since the 97 or so). And it looks like they will do so. 21 to 6 at the moment, yes[the channel doesn't come in well:mad2: so I can't easily tell]?

ljkkjlcm9

01-22-2007, 01:59 AM

it's tied now... but of course, the Pats never win big, especially in big games, always close. We'll see what happens

THE JACKEL

Bunny

01-22-2007, 02:22 AM

Colts will win.

ljkkjlcm9

01-22-2007, 02:24 AM

Colts will win.
why would you say that with absolutely nothing to back it up.

THE JACKEL

Bunny

01-22-2007, 02:28 AM

Because the second I hit enter, they scored a touchdown to tie the game 28-28.

Can you say destiny?

ljkkjlcm9

01-22-2007, 02:29 AM

Because the second I hit enter, they scored a touchdown to tie the game 28-28.

Can you say destiny?

because you waited to post it for when they scored, that's not destiny

THE JACKEL

Bunny

01-22-2007, 02:31 AM

Why would you say that with absolutely nothing to back it up.

THE BUNNY

Bunny

01-22-2007, 02:33 AM

I don't even watch football. I saw this thread as the most recent thread posted in for the Lounge, remembered that the game was on and decided to check to see who was winning. Then I decided that, since the Colts were losing, I would say they are going to win. And then I pressed enter.

And then they scored a touchdown.

I have a hell of a lot of better things to do than wait for the right moment to make a post. I'm not an idiot. Nor am I in need of a life. Sorry to break your hearts.

Edit: Told ya.

Bloodline666

01-22-2007, 03:21 AM

It will be kind of boring if the Patriots win again. Also if the Bears win, because that team puts me to sleep. Manning finally making it or New Orleans going from zero to hero would both be great stories.

Indy vs. NO would've been a hell of a story, in of itself, because it would've been Peyton Manning vs. his father's old team (perhaps Archie Manning would do the coin toss if that was the SB XLI match). But alas; the Bears spoiled that one.

And as for Rex Grossman...as far as I'm concerned, I STILL think he sucks, and the ONLY way to change my mind on that is if Rex Grossman wins a Super Bowl! That is the ONLY legitimate way to make up for a 1.3 passer rating in one game, and a 0 passer rating in another! I feel the same way about Peyton Manning. In fact, Peyton Manning is the modern day Dan Marino; QB with gaudy statistics that don't mean :skull::skull::skull::skull: because he still has yet to win a Super Bowl.

Tavrobel

01-22-2007, 03:22 AM

Colts will win won.

Never before have truer or more deserved words ever been said.

escobert

01-22-2007, 03:23 AM

Bears Vs Colts, I like this better then facing the Patriots.

Bunny

01-22-2007, 03:28 AM

I honestly think two people on this forum owe me an apology. How dare you deny my ability to see into the future. HOW DARE YOU!

ljkkjlcm9

01-22-2007, 03:29 AM

Well simply put, that game was bigger for Peyton Manning than this superbowl is, seriously
and bunny, you shouldn't have double posted especially when you edited the second post

oh, and I'll truly be upset if they push the whole, first time there is a black coach in the superbowl. Honestly, what difference does it make what race the coach is. They want equality, then stop making a big deal about race, seriously, in everything, it gets annoying.

THE JACKEL

Bunny

01-22-2007, 03:31 AM

I didn't double post. The person who had posted in between the two decided to delete their post. I know the rules of the forum, I don't need you telling them to me.

edczxcvbnm

01-22-2007, 03:32 AM

YEAH! Fuck the Patriots. Go back home and cry you losers! AAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Dungy vs Lovie. That is a good story for this super bowl. Dungy and Lovie have worked together so it should make for an interesting story(or as interesting as it can get).

After watching the Colts consistently destroy the Pats run game I think the Bears should be a bit concerned because the last thing they would want to do is put the game on Wrecks Grossman.

Peace out and FUCK THOSE DAMN PATRIOTS!

Del Murder

01-22-2007, 05:50 AM

That was an awesome game. I do not expect the Super Bowl to be better than that. This was the Super Bowl.

The NFC is a joke, but the Colts definitely have flaws. If this was Pats/Bears it would be a squash, but this one could be close. I still say Indy takes it in the end.

Bloodline666

01-22-2007, 07:10 AM

I have to say that this Colts/Pats rivalry we've seen recently has got to be the greatest NFL rivalry since the Cowboys/49ers rivalry (a rivalry I miss a lot, being a life-long Cowboys fan). Like the Cowboys/49ers rivalry of the previous 3 decades, this particular rivalry seems to decide league-wide dominance.

El Bandito

01-22-2007, 07:34 AM

I don't think that game could've been any better than it was. One person I was watching the game with summed it up best: "dammit, it's one game too early!" I highly doubt the Superbowl will be anything near as good as that.

I really think the Colts will pull this out. You can include me as being one of their naysayers coming into the playoffs, but they (especially the D) have surprised me beyond belief.

I see Grossman hitting the dirt a whole lot. They better get some good short route pass plays and screens ready. Also, Dallas Clark versus Todd Johnson (backup SS) should be a match-up to watch.

escobert

01-22-2007, 10:07 AM

It's obviously Bears over colts :p I hope everyone doubts the Bears again these two week so we can upset everyone again!

edczxcvbnm

01-22-2007, 04:51 PM

I will doubt the Bears just like I did all season. Screw you Bears. GOOOOO COLTS!

Tavrobel

01-22-2007, 08:15 PM

The Colts need to win, since the worse the Bears do, the better the Eagles' draft pick will be.

escobert

01-22-2007, 08:29 PM

I will doubt the Bears just like I did all season. Screw you Bears. GOOOOO COLTS!

Packers fans don't count. For anything.

Crushed Hope

01-22-2007, 08:46 PM

I will doubt the Bears just like I did all season. Screw you Bears. GOOOOO COLTS!

Packers fans don't count. For anything.

Packers fans count for alot :) Our team just didn't this season, but give them a few years and they can easily be back up to par if not great :D

Colts over Bears for me. Stop the Bears running game and the Bears have to rely on Grossman, and ... they won't be able to win it then.

Bunny

01-22-2007, 08:47 PM

Your name would be perfect if you were a Patriots fan.

I'm going Colts over Bears, 21-13.

Crushed Hope

01-22-2007, 08:49 PM

Your name would be perfect if you were a Patriots fan.

I'm going Colts over Bears, 21-13.

Nah, I'd go with it being perfect for a Saints fan honestly. Saints being beaten by that massively recharged Bears defense ... fuckin' CRUSHED the peoples hopes.

ffxatticus

01-22-2007, 09:35 PM

I've got the bears winning the SP, cuz I'm a pats fan.

btw, why is there a such penalty as "facemasking" (not facemask). A defender jumps and hits the ball, and gets a penalty for it?

Crushed Hope

01-22-2007, 09:39 PM

I've got the bears winning the SP, cuz I'm a pats fan.

btw, why is there a such penalty as "facemasking" (not facemask). A defender jumps and hits the ball, and gets a penalty for it?

If you mean the play when Hobbs I believe it was jumped up and clouded Wayne's view of the ball then I'm pretty sure that it was because just as pushing the reciever before he can get the ball interferes with the fairness of the game, blocking the reciever's sight of the ball interferes with it just as much.

ffxatticus

01-22-2007, 10:02 PM

yeah, but say hobbs was turned around and looking. It would not have made a difference in the play result for the colts, in fact he probably would have intercepted the pass. Thats what I don't get.

ljkkjlcm9

01-22-2007, 11:01 PM

yeah, but say hobbs was turned around and looking. It would not have made a difference in the play result for the colts, in fact he probably would have intercepted the pass. Thats what I don't get.

What I don't get, is if I'm running after you and the ball hits me in the back of the head, wouldn't that be the same thing? Oh, and there was a play when a Pats receiver went up to catch it, so the guy started to tackle him, before the ball got there, so he ended up not catching it. I'd think that'd be interference. I don't quite understand those rules I guess...

I hate the Colts, doesn't matter who they are playing, I want them to lose. Plus I want to see the Superbowl Shuffle!

THE JACKEL

edczxcvbnm

01-22-2007, 11:01 PM

yeah, but say hobbs was turned around and looking. It would not have made a difference in the play result for the colts, in fact he probably would have intercepted the pass. Thats what I don't get.

Being turned around or not is all the difference. It is the difference in making sure the guy doesn't catch the ball and trying to make a play on the ball yourself. He didn't try to make a play on the ball. All he did was make it impossible for the ball to even be caught by the receiver. It isn't much different from pushing the guy so he can't catch it...maybe it is but the principal is the same.

Kirobaito

01-22-2007, 11:02 PM

yeah, but say hobbs was turned around and looking. It would not have made a difference in the play result for the colts, in fact he probably would have intercepted the pass. Thats what I don't get.
That's the difference. Hobbs wasn't making a play on the ball. He didn't try to get the ball or even look for the ball. Had he been it would have been perfectly legal. But he wasn't trying to get the ball. He was trying to block Wayne's vision.

Doomie

01-22-2007, 11:29 PM

Thank God I drafted Saturday in my NFL Playoff pool. Saturday, you touchdown MACHINE!

escobert

01-23-2007, 01:23 AM

hahaha that made me giggle doomie

El Bandito

01-23-2007, 02:19 AM

It's obviously Bears over colts :p I hope everyone doubts the Bears again these two week so we can upset everyone again!

You mean like it was obvious that Larry Johnson would run for 150+ versus the Colts? And how the Ravens D was obviously just too much for them? And how Peyton would obviously choke against his rival team the Patriots? I thought all this would happen so much so that I lost money betting against the Colts.

Everyone doubted the Colts waaaaaay more than the Bears (me especially). I mean, the only person on the Bears that was super suspect was Grossman. And even then, the NFC is ridiculously weak this year. Honestly, seeds one through four of the AFC are on a much higher level than any team in the NFC this year.

I'm not even a big fan of the Colts (they kill my Broncos in the playoffs), but Peyton and Dungy deserve everything they've got this year. This was supposed to be the year the Colts fell without Edge. After allowing 100 rushing yards every single game, they were supposed to get run over easily in the playoffs. When the odds were against them and with the media constantly trying to find reasons for them to fail, they've come up big. I hope they win the Superbowl so everyone can shut up and finally not have any excuse to praise Manning as the great QB he is and Dungy as the great coach he is.

escobert

01-23-2007, 02:21 AM

Trying to find reasons for Colts the to fail?That's because up until this year they HAD failed to beat the Pats. they could never do it until now.And jesus, all I've heard since week 6 Hell since week 2 is how the Bears shouldn't have the record they have.

El Bandito

01-23-2007, 02:39 AM

Who ever says that the Bears defense is overrated? Or their running game? As I said, the only suspect part of the Bears has been Grossman. People never doubted the Bears ability, they only pointed out that other than the Seahawks, the Bears only played one other team that finished over .500 and that's the Patriots (who they lost to). Just like the Colts, the Bears gained respect back by beating a very hot New Orleans Saints team by a blowout. But even then, that's still the NFC. The Colts have had a much tougher schedule.

I'm not saying the Bears are bad by any means (it should be a pretty good game), but to say that they have had more criticism and general naysaying than the Colts as a whole is ludicrous.

escobert

01-23-2007, 02:47 AM

But really besides the horrid D and that ahs stepped up in the postseason Manning is the only thing this post season that has sucked for them and he played awsome all season. It was just their run d that got the criticism. The bears defense has been questioned hardcore the last month into the playoffs, also the offense in general really wasn't doing much. I know that we have the easiest schedule but who the hell decides that? I mean it's not like lovie and grossman say hey we want all the :skull::skull::skull::skull:ty teams in NFC north this year! it just happens. I can't help that noone in the NFC north could really do anything, or anyone in the NFC in general really. In 5 years or so the NFC will be better and the AFC will suck again adn it will flip flop every so often.

ljkkjlcm9

01-23-2007, 02:48 AM

Trying to find reasons for Colts the to fail?That's because up until this year they HAD failed to beat the Pats. they could never do it until now.

And funny enough, if you watched the game, half the time you heard and the former Patriot makes the catch. And on comes the former Patriot to take the kick. Half the Colts team is former Patriots lol

THE JACKEL

Dreams and Harmony

01-23-2007, 03:15 AM

I'm so very glad that the old Golden Boy just couldn't find it within him to pull yet another uncalled-for victory out of the deep depths of his anus.

I was ready to break something valuable had he done it.

But, luckily Manning stepped up, thus preventing me from going absolutely ballistic.

Colts over Bears.

Crushed Hope

01-24-2007, 12:19 AM

yeah, but say hobbs was turned around and looking. It would not have made a difference in the play result for the colts, in fact he probably would have intercepted the pass. Thats what I don't get.

What I don't get, is if I'm running after you and the ball hits me in the back of the head, wouldn't that be the same thing? Oh, and there was a play when a Pats receiver went up to catch it, so the guy started to tackle him, before the ball got there, so he ended up not catching it. I'd think that'd be interference. I don't quite understand those rules I guess...

If I remember the play you are talking about it was decided that the contact had nothing to do with the reciever catching the ball, which was why pass interference was not called. That or the ball was barely tipped.

Yamaneko

01-24-2007, 01:37 AM

If was pass interference because he jumped up in order to obstruct the view of the receiver. He wasn't actually covering him. He just jumped up randomly with his back towards the ball.

Bloodline666

01-24-2007, 11:28 PM

How do the Bears put you to sleep? I understand not a great offense, btu the defense pulls some crazy :skull::skull::skull::skull: out of their asses.
I just don't find defensive football to be that entertaining to watch.

If it weren't for defense, then sports would be totally one-sided. I often wonder why a bias against defense even exists, when it has been proven time and time again that defense wins more championships than lack thereof does. 2000 Baltimore Ravens or 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, anyone?

I will doubt the Bears just like I did all season. Screw you Bears. GOOOOO COLTS!

Packers fans don't count. For anything.

Just when I thought there wasn't a rivalry anywhere near as volatile as the Cowboys/Redskins/Eagles/Giants rivalry (aka, the NFC East Rivalry)...And speaking of the Green Bay Cheeseheads, I'm still waiting on word as to whether or not Brett Favre is gonna retire.

escobert

01-24-2007, 11:58 PM

If you like chicago obviously you don't like green bay and vice versa.

Crushed Hope

01-25-2007, 01:16 AM

If you like chicago obviously you don't like green bay and vice versa.

Yeah, pretty much. I'll admit the Bears are a good team but ... Colts need to win it :D

Del Murder

01-25-2007, 01:57 AM

I'm not saying defense isn't important to winning, I'm just saying games are a lot more boring when a lot of points aren't being scored. Defensive teams are not as fun to watch as offensive teams, in general. If a scores a lot of points but always loses, then that of course is not as fun to watch as a defensive team winning.

The Captain

01-27-2007, 09:23 AM

I'll be happy if either Lovie Smith (Greatest Ironic Football first name EVER) or Tony Dungy win because both emulate class first and truly have perspective about life, realizing that at the end of the day, it IS just a game, and family and for them, faith, are much more important, as it should be.

I've been way off these entire playoffs, but here goes:

Colts: 27
Bears: 24

MVP: Adam Vinatieri, kicking yet another game winning field goal.

Really, I just hope for a close game, not a blow-out, in either direction.

Take care all.

Take care all.

Del Murder

01-27-2007, 05:19 PM

Well obviously one of them is going to win, Cap.

Also, I don't think a kicker will ever get MVP.

Bloodline666

01-28-2007, 03:43 AM

Well obviously one of them is going to win, Cap.

Also, I don't think a kicker will ever get MVP.

Unless, of course, the Super Bowl ends up just like the Colts/Ravens playoff game, where only field goals are being scored the whole game. And although there has never been a shutout in Super Bowl history, only one time has a team been held without a touchdown in a Super Bowl, and that occurred in Super Bowl VI. Needless to say, that team (the Miami Dolphins) lost that Super Bowl 24-3.

That being said, I think the top candidates for Super Bowl MVP are Peyton Manning, Joseph Addai, Brian Urlacher, Rex Grossman, Devin Hester, and maybe Marvin Harrison, though historically, Peyton Manning and Rex Grossman have the highest chances, so long as their team wins, and Hester probably has the lowest chance of all the possible candidates. A QB has won the SB MVP more times than any other position. By contrast, a kick/punt returner has only won that award ONCE. The irony of Hester winning it is this; the only two kick/punt returners to win the SB MVP award come from rival teams, Hester with the Bears, and Desmond Howard (so far not only the only kick/punt returner to win the award, but the only special teams player period to win it) with the Cheeseheads. Chances of a player on a losing team are even slimmer, as only ONCE has a player on the losing team won the Super Bowl MVP, and that is Chuck Howley of the SB V runner-up Dallas Cowboys.

Bloodline666

01-30-2007, 05:32 AM

This seems like old news, but as of yesterday, there's been an update about it.

Anyone remember Reggie Bush's TD last week, where right before he reached the end zone, he turned his face towards Brian Urlacher's direction and pointed at him, shaking his index finger?

Well, upon further investigation, the league office hit The President with a $5,000 fine for taunting; such a fine is the standard fine for a first offense for taunting.

Now, according to the NFL rule book, taunting is supposed to result in a 15-yard penalty. (http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/penaltysummaries/) Meaning, the touchdown was supposed to have been waived off, and the down would have to be replayed 15-yards back, since the taunt was committed by the offense, and it occurred during the play, itself. However, no penalty flag was thrown, and understandably so, probably because the gesture made by Reggie Bush was ambiguous, and thus, was difficult for the refs to determine whether or not it could be interpreted as taunting at the time of the infraction. Lovie Smith could not legally challenge that, because whether or not a penalty was committed is not challengable according to the Instant Replay rules. Needless to say, the only way the lack of penalty flag affected the outcome of the game was the margin of victory by the Bears. As a matter of fact, had it not been for Reggie Bush's taunting, I think this game would've gone down to the wire, as Bush's taunt only succeeded in firing up the Bears' D.

With a hardass such as Roger Goodell in office as NFL Commissioner, don't be surprised if taunting fines, or fines in general, start increasing. He's already proven himself as such in the way he handled both the Albert Haynesworth stomping incident, and the T.O. spitting incident (which already showed an increase in spitting fines).