BeerBaron's Week 15 Thoughts

[BeerBaron]

It's that time again. The best part of my (and hopefully your) Monday.

Some more music for your listening pleasure this week:


O2fz_zBNl80
nFl0nlHaWa4
uA_suck5MTg
xMJNKOOVqc0


1.) The Giants are Trash.
They are a poorly coached, mentally weak team and absolutely do not deserve to make the playoffs. I've pissed and moaned about this team seemingly every week and I've finally had e-*******-nough.

Let's start with your offense. I've been a longtime defender of Eli Manning and one of the few non-Giant fans who seems to have him in that top 6-7 of QBs. He did not have his best game yesterday, though several of the picks weren't his fault. The receivers were dropping passing and running the wrong routes all day. The run game never even got started despite the game not being out of reach towards the end. (40 passes to 18 rush attempts? **** that.) Part of that may have been blocking, as the o-line was mess. Regardless, I find that ratio unacceptable.

And the defense. Rush 3-play-cover-2 ********? What a terrible scheme. Rexy threw a couple of picks that were him being stupid, but otherwise, he completed passes when he needed to. Key 3rd downs? Rexy finds someone over the middle. And who didn't abandon the run even though it wasn't working that well? The Redskins. (39 runs to 24 passes.) And this is all not even mentioning the part where the Giants first round pick (Amukamara) was benched.

The Redskins wanted this game more and absolutely took the Giants out to the woodshed and left their decaying corpse half-buried.

And the worst (or maybe best...I don't know...) is that the Giants could still make the playoffs and put a scare into any team they face. But the team's head is so far up it's own ass that I wouldn't trust them to beat the Buccaneers right now. (The Bucs have replaced the Colts as the worst team in my mind.)

2.) Can the Tebow talk stop for at least a little bit now?
There, the Broncos finally faced one of the league's elite and nearly got doubled up. This is what I've been waiting patiently for.

The Broncos got on quite the winning streak and beat everyone in ridiculous fashion. I grant you this. But playing with fire in that fashion is going to get you burned. The Patriots entered the 4th quarter up by more than the Broncos could realistically come back from, and when the Broncos started the comeback attempt, the Patriots piled on with another TD.

This is why the Broncos aren't going anywhere in the playoffs this year. Realistically, the Broncos are going to be the 4th seed, which means playing the #5 seed: either the Steelers or the Ravens. Even if they take advantage of the Wildcard round home game there, they'd have to head into Pittsburgh/Baltimore/Foxboro in the 2nd round. And even if they win there, they'd have to head into one of the other two remaining spots for the AFC Championship game. I just don't see them reeling off 3 straight wins against the AFC's elite like that.

They held up early against the Pats, but that juggernaut of an offense tore through the Broncos defense faster than the Tebow show on offense could keep up. That will be this team's downfall.

Yet, despite the Pats win, I'm left somewhat unfulfilled. People are saying that Tebow had his best game as a passer...he probably did. But it was against the Pats. If any other QB anywhere had their best game against the Pats, it would be said with that disclaimer: "It was against the Pats! Their defense sucks!"

But not Tebow. Even if defeat nothing but positives are mentioned. Even in his "best passing game" he completed just half his passes.

I give up. I realize that nothing I say will sway the minds of the Tebow faithful. I'm left with no choice but to let the Broncos fail in the post season and fail next season once teams have a year's worth of tape to study. I have a feeling that defenses will be able to adjust better to defending Tebow than Tebow ever will as a passer.

3.) Do you believe me now? (Blaine Gabbert)
How many more showings do you guys need until you believe me? I'm eventually going to convert you all so that we can say 100% of the board correctly believed that Gabbert will fail.

These aren't rookie mistakes. I feel like a broken record saying this. His mistakes come from the fact that he's a terrified pansy who can't be bothered to look downfield while he helplessly pisses and shits himself against the ghost pass rushers coming after him.

Sure, he doesn't get great protection. But who really does in the league right now? Good QBs adjust. Rodgers and Roethlisberger and Cutler make up for terrible pass protection by moving around and taking shots when needed. Guys like Brady and Brees make up for it when they get lousy protection by adjusting their blocking at the line, releasing quickly and stepping up into the pocket when they can.

Gabbert does none of this. He's awful. When Jon Gruden talks negatively about you, you know you're terrible because Gruden never talks badly about ANYONE.

I feel for their next head coach. Gene Smith is going to stick Gabbert up that coach's ass and tell the coach to work with Gabbert.

I feel bad for Jag fans. Say bye to your next 2 years as the Gabbert experiment is allowed to crash and burn...and burn...and burn....

4.) The Raiders crashed and burned.
I can't rail too hard on Carson Palmer this week,. as he actually played a pretty damn good game. In fact, the offense as a whole played fairly well and even DHB had a career game.

But at the end of the day, this team finds ways to lose. But Matt Stafford had a BETTER day, and so did Calvin Johnson.

I think the Raiders year is done. Even if the the rest of the AFC West stumbles the rest of the way, the Raiders will find a way to lose. And if they get to the playoffs, I expect them to get spanked pretty handily.

As for the Lions, they could be a thorn in the side of any NFC team they face. But any win they get will likely have to come as part of a shootout. That secondary is awful and even getting a banged up Delmas back isn't going to magically make them passable.

5.) Who'da thunk it? (Chiefs vs. Packers)
Well, my prediction of a 63-1 Packers win was slightly off...

And the Chiefs didn't sneak by and get lucky either. They stood up there toe-to-toe with the Packers and knocked them out.

Their best defense against Rodgers and the Packers was actually their offense. The Chiefs dominated the time of possession and didn't commit any turnovers. I suppose that is as good of "blueprint to beating the Packers" as any. "Just don't **** up."

The Chiefs played hard and pretty much ensured that Romeo Crennel gets their head coaching job next year. If I were them, I'd definitely still look for a new offensive coordinator and QB, but Crennel at HC with Pioli acquiring the players may just work.

As for the Packers, they're still the favorites, though the injuries on the o-line would have me scared. Rodgers is as good as any at avoiding pressure, but a big part of the Chiefs victory yesterday was the fact that no one could block Tamba. Being extremely thin at OT isn't going to be easy to overcome.

6.) What to make of the Ravens?
When they play well, they could beat anyone. When they suck, they are downright awful.

I'm not even sure where to begin. If you saw the game, you saw them playing awful in every facet of the game. Flacco lost all of the respect I had gained for him with the comeback win over the Steelers a few weeks ago. The Chargers dropped what could have been another couple of interceptions too.

They gave up on Ray Rice too quickly as well. The game wasn't out of hand until at least halftime, yet Ray comes away with all of 10 carries. This team will never do a damn thing in the post season with Cam Cameron calling the shots. He is easily one of my least favorite offensive coordinators in the sport right now for the constant misuse of his players. He's trying to land another head coaching gig by being a "god damned offensive genius" and he's failing spectacularly. Sometimes the simple way to go is the best way.

The defense also struggled badly. Granted, December Philip Rivers is nigh invincible, but they couldn't even slow the Chargers down a little bit. Jimmy Smith had an awful showing and the Ravens couldn't generate any kind of pass rush against an extremely banged up Chargers o-line.

The worst thing for the Ravens is when they have to go on the road. Every one of their losses this year has come on the road, and they looked like garbage in every single one. (at Tennessee, at Jacksonville, at Seattle and now at San Diego.)

In order to make any kind of postseason run, the Ravens NEEDED homefield advantage more than any other team, and now it's looking unlikely that they'll get it.

7.) Cardinals mention to appease Fenikz
Alright, yes, I finally have to talk about them. They're an unlikely 7-7 and are just finding ways to win.

John Skelton (or should I say "Skeleton?") is now 5-1 as a starter and, while extremely erratic, typically does enough to get the win.

Another thing aiding in their wins is that they defend their home turf well (5-2 at home this season.) No one wants to go into the desert to face these guys.

Now I think I'm all talked out about the Cardinals.

8.) Push to change how the playoffs are seeded.
This one has been on my mind for a little while, and almost always gets brought up when a wildcard team with a great record has to go on the road to play a ****** division winner.

I know the counter argument: Division winners should get a home game! I say bull **** to that. I think it's straight up wrong for a team to go 12-4 but have to go on the road to play an 8-8 team (Which totally could happen if the Ravens/Steelers division loser is the #5 seed going against the AFC West winner.) That goes against everything else the league stands for.

Another counter argument is that every division gets a guaranteed playoff spot. I'm not against changing that, but make the seeding go purely based off of record. If a division winner has the worst record of the 6 playoff teams, then they should be seeded 6th.

I think this would be fair. Just because something has been done the way it has for a long time doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon.

9.) Random Other Thoughts:

Don't count out the Jets.
Two years under Rex Ryan, two wildcard births, and two appearances in the AFC Championship game. They looked like **** yesterday, but this is not a team I will ever count out. I'll never count on them to win, but I won't count them out either.

Colts Win
I'd still fire every-*******-body. One win saves Caldwell's job? Give me a ******* break. No 1-15 coach should ever get to keep his job.

Houston's Loss
Unfortunate since I talked them up a lot last week, but the Panthers are a tough out. They probably cost themselves a bye week, but just making the playoffs with your 3rd string QB should be considered an accomplishment.

Alas, the Bears...
I have to believe we'd be no worse than 10-4 with a healthy Cutler right now. Possibly even 11-3. But damn....damn damn damn. Sighhh.....what could have been this season....blahhasdlkjfal;sjdf;la.....alsdjfl....** **.

That's all I've got for this week. Feel free to discuss or bring up anything else you'd like my thoughts on.

[jth1331]

2.) Can the Tebow talk stop for at least a little bit now?
There, the Broncos finally faced one of the league's elite and nearly got doubled up. This is what I've been waiting patiently for.

The Broncos got on quite the winning streak and beat everyone in ridiculous fashion. I grant you this. But playing with fire in that fashion is going to get you burned. The Patriots entered the 4th quarter up by more than the Broncos could realistically come back from, and when the Broncos started the comeback attempt, the Patriots piled on with another TD.

This is why the Broncos aren't going anywhere in the playoffs this year. Realistically, the Broncos are going to be the 4th seed, which means playing the #5 seed: either the Steelers or the Ravens. Even if they take advantage of the Wildcard round home game there, they'd have to head into Pittsburgh/Baltimore/Foxboro in the 2nd round. And even if they win there, they'd have to head into one of the other two remaining spots for the AFC Championship game. I just don't see them reeling off 3 straight wins against the AFC's elite like that.

They held up early against the Pats, but that juggernaut of an offense tore through the Broncos defense faster than the Tebow show on offense could keep up. That will be this team's downfall.

Yet, despite the Pats win, I'm left somewhat unfulfilled. People are saying that Tebow had his best game as a passer...he probably did. But it was against the Pats. If any other QB anywhere had their best game against the Pats, it would be said with that disclaimer: "It was against the Pats! Their defense sucks!"

But not Tebow. Even if defeat nothing but positives are mentioned. Even in his "best passing game" he completed just half his passes.

I give up. I realize that nothing I say will sway the minds of the Tebow faithful. I'm left with no choice but to let the Broncos fail in the post season and fail next season once teams have a year's worth of tape to study. I have a feeling that defenses will be able to adjust better to defending Tebow than Tebow ever will as a passer.


i've been waiting to hear you reaction. Funny thing is, the Broncos stood tall against the Pats until they screwed themselves over. Missed extra point on a fumbled snap, -1 point. Lance Ball fumbling inside their own 30 resulting in a field goal for the Pats. Tebow fumbling at their own 40 resulting in a TD for the Pats. Quan Cosby screwing up and trying to field a punt with 3 seconds left in the 2nd quarter, muffing it and Pats recover for a field goal. Thats basically a 14 point swing in favor of the Pats in the first half.
With the way the Broncos were driving the ball, I feel they would've kept the game close for the most part, but when you go -3 in the turnover department and all 3 turnovers in your territory, you're going to get killed and thats what happened.
Tebow did play well though. When everything was going the Pats way, things self destructed though, and for gods sake I don't know why the Broncos offensive cordinator doesn't run screen passes, quick hitches, quick slants, etc. Nearly everything is going down the field.

[BeerBaron]

i've been waiting to hear you reaction. Funny thing is, the Broncos stood tall against the Pats until they screwed themselves over. Missed extra point on a fumbled snap, -1 point. Lance Ball fumbling inside their own 30 resulting in a field goal for the Pats. Tebow fumbling at their own 40 resulting in a TD for the Pats. Quan Cosby screwing up and trying to field a punt with 3 seconds left in the 2nd quarter, muffing it and Pats recover for a field goal. Thats basically a 14 point swing in favor of the Pats in the first half.
With the way the Broncos were driving the ball, I feel they would've kept the game close for the most part, but when you go -3 in the turnover department and all 3 turnovers in your territory, you're going to get killed and thats what happened.
Tebow did play well though. When everything was going the Pats way, things self destructed though, and for gods sake I don't know why the Broncos offensive cordinator doesn't run screen passes, quick hitches, quick slants, etc. Nearly everything is going down the field.

I don't disagree with anything you say. I really don't. But it still feeds into my "playing with fire" argument.

Part of all those 4th quarter comebacks is being insanely lucky. If Marion Barber trips and falls in bounds, that game is a loss. If the Dolphins recover that onsides kick, that game is a loss. There was a HUGE luck element involved. It had been going the Broncos way up until this week.

Now, they had that luck go against them and...lost. They weren't a good enough team to overcome it and the Pats took advantage.

Additionally, I don't know why they don't throw slants and screens and things either. That is what helped the horrifically inaccurate McNabb all those years. Dump offs to RBs and TEs really helped keep him in a rhythm.

The Broncos never really get into a rhythm from what I've seen. They'll sometimes put a good drive together and pound their way down the field....or Tebow will just throw nowhere near anybody for a sudden momentum killer.

[vidae]

Holy crap, a Chiefs mention! : D

[killxswitch]

8.) Push to change how the playoffs are seeded.
This one has been on my mind for a little while, and almost always gets brought up when a wildcard team with a great record has to go on the road to play a ****** division winner.

I know the counter argument: Division winners should get a home game! I say bull **** to that. I think it's straight up wrong for a team to go 12-4 but have to go on the road to play an 8-8 team (Which totally could happen if the Ravens/Steelers division loser is the #5 seed going against the AFC West winner.) That goes against everything else the league stands for.

Another counter argument is that every division gets a guaranteed playoff spot. I'm not against changing that, but make the seeding go purely based off of record. If a division winner has the worst record of the 6 playoff teams, then they should be seeded 6th.

I think this would be fair. Just because something has been done the way it has for a long time doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon.


I strongly agree with this. And I'd take it a step farther and say a team should not be rewarded at all if they don't have a winning record IMO. If a division can't be represented by just one single team with 9 or more wins then the division doesn't deserve to be represented IMO.

But I know that would never fly with the majority so the most reasonable thing to do is what you suggest. Stick with rewarding division winners with a playoff game, and base seeding strictly on record. The first tie breaker would be whether or not the team won their division.

Some might point out a situation where a strong division winner with a 12-4 record wouldn't host a playoff game because, for example, the AFC North had teams with 14-2 and 13-3 records. Yes I guess this is possible but IMO that's not worse than a 7-9 team hosting a team with 10+ wins. If you want a home playoff game, win more games. This would also give teams like the Colts (back when we were good) that much more incentive to play out the season instead of rusting the starters.

[Jughead10]

Eli certainly didn't play like himself, and we basically can't win a game any other way than Eli carrying us. I stand by my statement that we'd have 1 win without him. The Skins basically ran one play, two different ways, 75% of the game. And we couldn't stop it. Pathetic.

Did you think the one pick was PI? London Fletcher face guarded the crap out of Danny Ware. Ball hits Fletcher in the back and bounces into a teammates hands.

[jth1331]

I don't disagree with anything you say. I really don't. But it still feeds into my "playing with fire" argument.

Part of all those 4th quarter comebacks is being insanely lucky. If Marion Barber trips and falls in bounds, that game is a loss. If the Dolphins recover that onsides kick, that game is a loss. There was a HUGE luck element involved. It had been going the Broncos way up until this week.

Now, they had that luck go against them and...lost. They weren't a good enough team to overcome it and the Pats took advantage.

Additionally, I don't know why they don't throw slants and screens and things either. That is what helped the horrifically inaccurate McNabb all those years. Dump offs to RBs and TEs really helped keep him in a rhythm.

The Broncos never really get into a rhythm from what I've seen. They'll sometimes put a good drive together and pound their way down the field....or Tebow will just throw nowhere near anybody for a sudden momentum killer.

Yeah, the Broncos have a little ways to go before they can continuously hang with the "elite" teams. One thing I noticed is how little playmakers the Broncos have on offense. Sure, Decker and Thomas have shown flashes of being good WR's, but they don't have a guy who can get a quick step on a defender, catch a quick pass and take it an easy 30 yards. They need a playmaker at WR/TE and add a RB in the draft IMO. Yes, they need to shore up some issues on defense, but the offense sorely needs a threat on offense.

As far as the quick passes/screens, I just don't understand why not use them. The Patriots killed the Broncos with quick passes and quick screens. Then the Broncos roll out trying to throw deep outs/ins against blitzes.

As far as this game, the Broncos were rolling early. Everything was going right. Pounding the rock, Tebow hitting WR's, getting up to a 16-7 lead. One thing, the Broncos faced a 4th and 1 on the New England 8 yard line and Fox elected to kick a field goal instead of going for it. At that point, it was a 13-7 lead for the Broncos and by this time, the Broncos already had 130+ rushing yards and Tebow's your QB.
The downfall began with the fumbles though. After the Patriots made it 16-14, Lance Ball fumbles on the first snap of the next drive, Patriots recover and kick a field goal.
Next drive, after two plays getting 26 yards, Tebow fumbles on a stupid option play due to our OC getting too cute. Patriots recover on the Broncos 40, and go down the field to score a TD. 24-16.
With a minute to go on their own 13 yard line, Broncos pass 2 times for incomplete and then run it for 7 yards, giving New England 50 seconds to work with.
Pats forced to punt, but Quan Cosby muffs and Pats recover and have time to kick a field goal to go up 27-16.

For some reason, the Broncos went away from what has been working on offense and tried to get into a heavy pass game throwing down the field.

[BeerBaron]

Eli certainly didn't play like himself, and we basically can't win a game any other way than Eli carrying us. I stand by my statement that we'd have 1 win without him. The Skins basically ran one play, two different ways, 75% of the game. And we couldn't stop it. Pathetic.

Did you think the one pick was PI? London Fletcher face guarded the crap out of Danny Ware. Ball hits Fletcher in the back and bounces into a teammates hands.

Face guarding isn't a penalty remember. I just went and looked at it a few more times, and I don't think Fletcher interferes otherwise.

Also, wtf kind of playcall has Danny Ware running a route 30 yards downfield? The **** is that?

Yeah, the Broncos have a little ways to go before they can continuously hang with the "elite" teams. One thing I noticed is how little playmakers the Broncos have on offense. Sure, Decker and Thomas have shown flashes of being good WR's, but they don't have a guy who can get a quick step on a defender, catch a quick pass and take it an easy 30 yards. They need a playmaker at WR/TE and add a RB in the draft IMO. Yes, they need to shore up some issues on defense, but the offense sorely needs a threat on offense.

As far as the quick passes/screens, I just don't understand why not use them. The Patriots killed the Broncos with quick passes and quick screens. Then the Broncos roll out trying to throw deep outs/ins against blitzes.

As far as this game, the Broncos were rolling early. Everything was going right. Pounding the rock, Tebow hitting WR's, getting up to a 16-7 lead. One thing, the Broncos faced a 4th and 1 on the New England 8 yard line and Fox elected to kick a field goal instead of going for it. At that point, it was a 13-7 lead for the Broncos and by this time, the Broncos already had 130+ rushing yards and Tebow's your QB.
The downfall began with the fumbles though. After the Patriots made it 16-14, Lance Ball fumbles on the first snap of the next drive, Patriots recover and kick a field goal.
Next drive, after two plays getting 26 yards, Tebow fumbles on a stupid option play due to our OC getting too cute. Patriots recover on the Broncos 40, and go down the field to score a TD. 24-16.
With a minute to go on their own 13 yard line, Broncos pass 2 times for incomplete and then run it for 7 yards, giving New England 50 seconds to work with.
Pats forced to punt, but Quan Cosby muffs and Pats recover and have time to kick a field goal to go up 27-16.

For some reason, the Broncos went away from what has been working on offense and tried to get into a heavy pass game throwing down the field.

Again, there was a lot of luck involved in the win streak. Things really went the Broncos way during that time that didn't yesterday.

Fumbles can be caused by a great play by the defense, but there's still a significant portion of luck once that ball is stripped or lost.

Yesterday the Pats simply took advantage of the balls that bounced their way. It's why I can't see the Broncos stringing anything together in the playoffs. The Steelers, Ravens and Patriots are all 3 more talented overall than the Broncos, and to get the streaks of luck needed to beat just one would be difficult. But all 3? In a row? With two on the road?

The Broncos just aren't that good.

[Jughead10]

Face guarding isn't a penalty remember. I just went and looked at it a few more times, and I don't think Fletcher interferes otherwise.

Also, wtf kind of playcall has Danny Ware running a route 30 yards downfield? The **** is that?

Since when is face guarding not a penalty?

[wogitalia]

I actually think the Bronco's are a decent matchup with the Ravens/Steelers. I can't see them beating teams that have a great offense(Pats, Packers and Saints).

Their defense is solid, even very good, but it has struggled against both teams that have explosive offenses during Tebow's reign of terror. They just aren't a team that is built to play from behind, their best assets on defense are their pass rushers, their best offensive skill set is their running game. Falling behind is a double whammy for them because it nullifies both of those rather quickly.

As for the Ravens... Cameron is 100% of their problem. Their playcalling is just woeful. Even in the 3rd quarter they were down 2 and a half scores and the run was basically completely shelved. They are a team that should be running until the 4th quarter if they are within 3 scores.

This is my biggest problem with the modern game and OCs at the moment. They bail on the run so absurdly quick, I think a large part of the Bronco's success has been their willingness to just keep pounding the rock until it wears the opponent down, defenses aren't built to cope with that anymore and it works. Hell look at the Dolphins, they are winning and being very competitive with a run heavy approach, with a guy who was previously a bust.

If you don't have an elite QB, you should basically never be passing more than you run. Hell, if anything you are advantaged by running when down 2 scores now because no defense is going to expect it, you don't expose your QB to aggressive pass rushing and coverage schemes designed to take advantage of that, Ravens game was a perfect example, they got their picks from their LB and pass rushers, they simply shifted the pressure and dropped guys and Flacco didn't have a clue what was happening, result was pickcity. Basically by not running they take their best offensive player out of the game and expose Flacco, Flacco is an opportunistic QB who can hit a wide open guy and generally throw deep, the worst thing you can do is ask him to throw when teams are only trying to stop that happening.

It's kind of funny that the teams that you generally are offended by all have this in common.

Will throw out something as well... rookie QBs seemingly having more success in recent times... I think the explanation is easy, a rookie QB leads to a team generally trying to run the ball a lot more and not giving up on the run anywhere near as quick. Bengals, Falcons, Broncos, Bucs, Jets and Rams all come to mind as teams that went run heavy with 1st/2nd year QBs and had great success, the Falcons slipped when they went away from the run too much and started asking too much of Ryan, Bucs have gone to crap and it is absurd how little they are running, Rams are the same asking Bradford to do too much and then asking his scrub backups as well.

[NY+Giants=NYG]

Operation clean slate: Get rid of ALL our coaches!

[J-Mike88]

Beer hits in a big, overlooked factor in this league: LUCK.

Many fans say it's an excuse for the losing side, but the fact of the matter is there is always luck involved. And there is good luck, and bad luck.
It can't be coached and it can't be outplayed.

Fumbles, bounce which way?
Tipped passes, where does it deflect to, left, right, back, up, down?

Same with close calls by zebras. There are plenty of calls where we can't tell for sure if it was or wasn't a penalty..... so whatever the zebra calls, it has a big impact.

What Barber did was luck for the Broncos.
Recovering any onside kick is luck.
So are hail mary passes. Blocked kicks are mostly luck that the ball just happened to hit the hand.
So is getting a team when they've just lost their starting QB.
Injuries are a lot luck, bad luck.

The Packers defense is horse**** and has been all year long really. But they've had a lot of 'lucky' turnovers. Now some are great plays yes, but the Packers DBs gamble, bite all the time (think Asante Samuel).... and sometimes they get the picks, pick-6's.

But many other times, they're toasted for easy wide open completions. When we don't get the picks, like yesterday, we can't stop anyone.

[BeerBaron]

Since when is face guarding not a penalty?

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4778957_nfl-rules-face-guarding.html

I'm pretty sure it hasn't been a rule for my football watching and following time. (Since I've been like 5.) So going on 20 years?

You can do whatever you want as a defender as long as you don't actually touch the guy. And if you turn around to look for the ball, some incidental contact is allowed too.

I actually think the Bronco's are a decent matchup with the Ravens/Steelers. I can't see them beating teams that have a great offense(Pats, Packers and Saints).

Their defense is solid, even very good, but it has struggled against both teams that have explosive offenses during Tebow's reign of terror. They just aren't a team that is built to play from behind, their best assets on defense are their pass rushers, their best offensive skill set is their running game. Falling behind is a double whammy for them because it nullifies both of those rather quickly.

As for the Ravens... Cameron is 100% of their problem. Their playcalling is just woeful. Even in the 3rd quarter they were down 2 and a half scores and the run was basically completely shelved. They are a team that should be running until the 4th quarter if they are within 3 scores.

This is my biggest problem with the modern game and OCs at the moment. They bail on the run so absurdly quick, I think a large part of the Bronco's success has been their willingness to just keep pounding the rock until it wears the opponent down, defenses aren't built to cope with that anymore and it works. Hell look at the Dolphins, they are winning and being very competitive with a run heavy approach, with a guy who was previously a bust.

If you don't have an elite QB, you should basically never be passing more than you run. Hell, if anything you are advantaged by running when down 2 scores now because no defense is going to expect it, you don't expose your QB to aggressive pass rushing and coverage schemes designed to take advantage of that, Ravens game was a perfect example, they got their picks from their LB and pass rushers, they simply shifted the pressure and dropped guys and Flacco didn't have a clue what was happening, result was pickcity. Basically by not running they take their best offensive player out of the game and expose Flacco, Flacco is an opportunistic QB who can hit a wide open guy and generally throw deep, the worst thing you can do is ask him to throw when teams are only trying to stop that happening.

It's kind of funny that the teams that you generally are offended by all have this in common.

Will throw out something as well... rookie QBs seemingly having more success in recent times... I think the explanation is easy, a rookie QB leads to a team generally trying to run the ball a lot more and not giving up on the run anywhere near as quick. Bengals, Falcons, Broncos, Bucs, Jets and Rams all come to mind as teams that went run heavy with 1st/2nd year QBs and had great success, the Falcons slipped when they went away from the run too much and started asking too much of Ryan, Bucs have gone to crap and it is absurd how little they are running, Rams are the same asking Bradford to do too much and then asking his scrub backups as well.

If the Ravens walked into Mile High and lost, would I be surprised? No. The Ravens suck on the road. But if the Broncos had to go into Pittsburgh, I think they'd come out thrashed.

The Steelers have a stout, tough defense. Their problem tends to come against teams like the Packers who spread them out and pick them apart. The Broncos trying to run right at the Steelers would have Dick LeBeau salavating. In the past decade, there has not been a team overall better against the run than the Steelers.

PLUS the Steelers could run up the score pretty quickly too. Ben and that young group of WRs plus Miller and Mendenhall should put an easy 30+ on the Broncos defense.

So no, the Steelers would not be a good matchup for the Broncos.

You do have a point in teams sticking to the run game. Ideally, for me, you'd have a 50/50 run/pass ratio. Hell, if the other team can't stop the run, just keep running.

Even in a closer game where you have to throw to come back, I still don't like seeing the ratio get beyond 60/40 pass/run. (The Ravens last night had 35 passes vs. 14 rushes....)

I HATE that. I'm all about balance. I love me some balance. Even in the past two years with the heavy passing attacks of the Packers and Saints winning Superbowls, those teams still ran just enough to keep defenses honest. Pierre Thomas and James Starks became bigger parts of the offense during each of those team's Superbowl runs.

Guys like Cam Cameron and Mike Martz and (at least yesterday) Kevin Gilbride just give up once the run gets stopped a few times.

The run game is something that improves with use. Defenses get worn down and your runs start gaining more and more with each rush.

Yet those coordinators will just ******* quit once a run gets stopped a time or two. "Oh, that rush only gained one yard...better pass twice!"

No matter how pass wacky the league overall starts to get, the best teams will still be the ones who can run the ball for balance purposes. You don't need a 1600 yard rusher, but a guy who gets around 1000 and can come in to help you put a team away with 40 yards int he 4th quarter will always have a place in the league.

[J-Mike88]

Did Von Miller play yesterday? Was someone else wearing his jersey?

What I saw from Tamba Hali was 10x the player I saw from Miller yesterday?

[Jughead10]

http://www.ehow.com/facts_4778957_nfl-rules-face-guarding.html

I'm pretty sure it hasn't been a rule for my football watching and following time. (Since I've been like 5.) So going on 20 years?

You can do whatever you want as a defender as long as you don't actually touch the guy. And if you turn around to look for the ball, some incidental contact is allowed too.

Interesting. They call it PI all the time though because the defender doesn't play the ball and prevents the receiver from making a play. Especially on an under thrown ball.

[Brent]

What I saw from Tamba Hali was 10x the player I saw from Miller yesterday?
Are you asking us? More importantly, it's a tad unfair to compare a rookie to 6th year pro.

[BeerBaron]

Beer hits in a big, overlooked factor in this league: LUCK.

Many fans say it's an excuse for the losing side, but the fact of the matter is there is always luck involved. And there is good luck, and bad luck.
It can't be coached and it can't be outplayed.

Fumbles, bounce which way?
Tipped passes, where does it deflect to, left, right, back, up, down?

Same with close calls by zebras. There are plenty of calls where we can't tell for sure if it was or wasn't a penalty..... so whatever the zebra calls, it has a big impact.

What Barber did was luck for the Broncos.
Recovering any onside kick is luck.
So are hail mary passes. Blocked kicks are mostly luck that the ball just happened to hit the hand.
So is getting a team when they've just lost their starting QB.
Injuries are a lot luck, bad luck.

The Packers defense is horse**** and has been all year long really. But they've had a lot of 'lucky' turnovers. Now some are great plays yes, but the Packers DBs gamble, bite all the time (think Asante Samuel).... and sometimes they get the picks, pick-6's.

But many other times, they're toasted for easy wide open completions. When we don't get the picks, like yesterday, we can't stop anyone.

Indeed.

My way to put it is that your team still needs talent to capitalize on the lucky breaks. The Broncos had just enough to squeak by in that win streak and it ran out yesterday when the luck turned on them.

It is a great defensive play to reach in and strip the ball from the ball carrier for instance. But once that ball is out, it could go any which way. If the defense gets it, that could change the whole game. If it bounces right back into the chest of the offensive player or goes sailing out of bounds, it's a HUGE break for the offense.

One great example is the first Bears/Packers game last season. There was a fumble by the Packers right along the sideline...it was literally no more than an inch or two away from going out of bounds, allowing the Bears to recover. If it goes out, the Packer keep possession and maybe go on to win. The Bears instead recover and they get the victory.

Remember, it's always safer to simply be the more talented team. Luck tends to balance out in the end...for every ball you have bounce your way, one in the future will inevitably bounce the other way. So your safest bet is to simply be the better team and be able to overcome bad luck.

But it'll always be a factor. The "better team" doesn't always win in football...probably less so than in any other major sport. And a big component of that is that luck plays the biggest part in football.

[BeerBaron]

Interesting. They call it PI all the time though because the defender doesn't play the ball and prevents the receiver from making a play. Especially on an under thrown ball.

It's never been a rule that I knew of, like I said. When it gets called, it's probably because there is a little bit of contact, or the ref THINKS there's a little bit of contact.

But if the defender doesn't touch the offensive player, even if his back is turned, it shouldn't be flagged.

[scottyboy]

ray rice should be getting more than 10 ******* carries. Yes, I'm well aware he had 9 catches, but run the ball more ravens, jeebus.

and yes, giants are poop, but can win out and make the playoffs and make a run because we're so ******* erratic and crazy. We can beat any team in the league...and lose to any team in the league. And as cliche as it is, it's the god damn truth. Beating the Patriots and Cowboys? Playing the Pack tight? Lolz, let's go get swept by the redskins, lose to the seahawks and eagles. ridiculous

[BeerBaron]

ray rice should be getting more than 10 ******* carries. Yes, I'm well aware he had 9 catches, but run the ball more ravens, jeebus.

and yes, giants are poop, but can win out and make the playoffs and make a run because we're so ******* erratic and crazy. We can beat any team in the league...and lose to any team in the league. And as cliche as it is, it's the god damn truth. Beating the Patriots and Cowboys? Playing the Pack tight? Lolz, let's go get swept by the redskins, lose to the seahawks and eagles. ridiculous

The sad part is that you could have beaten ALL of those teams you mentioned if your coordinators called plays and schemes appropriate to your talent.

If the Giants had Spags as a DC and he was calling aggressive pressures and man coverage, The Giants are probably in conversation for AT LEAST a bye in the playoffs. Not .500 and barely going to get in, if at all.

[J-Mike88]

Indeed.

One great example is the first Bears/Packers game last season. There was a fumble by the Packers right along the sideline...it was literally no more than an inch or two away from going out of bounds, allowing the Bears to recover. If it goes out, the Packer keep possession and maybe go on to win. The Bears instead recover and they get the victory.
Yes, that was the drive we had with the game tied, despite the refs calling 2 different penalties on our defense that denied us interceptions, and another that was a shaky holding call on Tauscher that erased a Finley TD, that ended up being a Peppers blocked FG.

Still, with a minute left, the game was tied, and we'd driven to midfield and James Jones had a catch for a first down on the right sideline. He fumbled and the ball bounced to the sideline, and then hit that invisible forcefield one centimeter from the sideline, and then the Bear player was able to come and scoop it right up without it or him going out of bounds!

James Jones loves helping the Bears!

[scottyboy]

The sad part is that you could have beaten ALL of those teams you mentioned if your coordinators called plays and schemes appropriate to your talent.

If the Giants had Spags as a DC and he was calling aggressive pressures and man coverage, The Giants are probably in conversation for AT LEAST a bye in the playoffs. Not .500 and barely going to get in, if at all.

Fewell infuriates the hell out of me. It's also the absolute lack of linebacker talent. While I love Kiwanuka, and he's played damn well considering, he's still a DE playing LB. Yes, he's impressed me a ton, but still. The lack of execution and just the absolute garbage schemes...I mean, 3rd and 16, and you sit back in a soft zone, rush 3 and let Stallworth pick up 15 and then they cram it down our throats on 4th and 1. That shouldnt happen. There's no motivation or fight, another thing we sorely miss with spags. He coached those boys up. Fewell just sits there jerking off to Cover-2 monthly.

[SFbear]

The debate about whether Tebow is a great QB or the greatest QB will continue for many Tebowmaniacs. However the casual fans who tuned in because they were buying the rather creepy argument that the Broncos were winning due to divine intervention will probably return to their regularly scheduled programming.

[Sloopy]

**** me about the Ravens....

Saying that we played awful is an understatement.

I agree with you that we have looked awful on the road at times but I want to highlight another factor you bought up:

Cam Cameron, and most importantly Ray Rice with 10 carries... Every game that we have lost, for the most part, Ray Rice has not gotten his carries.

I agree that home field was important for us but we have also won some big games on the road, the only difference being Rice's carries. We are built to be a run first team and by all means should be... **** YOU CAM

The D also played poorly but they were on the field a lot. Still, kind of a let down.

The biggest blast of salt to the wound comes in the fact that Gaither absolutely shut down Suggs. I haven't watched many games of the Chargers but Gaither looked good last night. Coming from a guy that we let go, hurts.

[BeerBaron]

The debate about whether Tebow is a great QB or the greatest QB will continue for many Tebowmaniacs. However the casual fans who tuned in because they were buying the rather creepy argument that the Broncos were winning due to divine intervention will probably return to their regularly scheduled programming.

ESPN seems particularly hurt. There was just this tone in the voices of the analysts like "now what will we fill 5 hour-long segments of NFL Live with?"

This is what I think the long term picture looks like for Tebow and the Broncos. They had their ridiculous run which, as I said, required a lot of things to go their way that simply won't happen as often in the future. In order to get those 7 come from behind victories or however many there were, you first need to get behind, which is an insanely dangerous way to go about things.

And like I said, I trust NFL defenses to better adjust over the offseason in order to play better against Tebow, than I trust Tebow to actually improve as a passer.

**** me about the Ravens....

Saying that we played awful is an understatement.

I agree with you that we have looked awful on the road at times but I want to highlight another factor you bought up:

Cam Cameron, and most importantly Ray Rice with 10 carries... Every game that we have lost, for the most part, Ray Rice has not gotten his carries.

I agree that home field was important for us but we have also won some big games on the road, the only difference being Rice's carries. We are built to be a run first team and by all means should be... **** YOU CAM

The D also played poorly but they were on the field a lot. Still, kind of a let down.

The biggest blast of salt to the wound comes in the fact that Gaither absolutely shut down Suggs. I haven't watched many games of the Chargers but Gaither looked good last night. Coming from a guy that we let go, hurts.

Yeah, Gaither played great. And the Chargers may need him long term, as there both McNeil and Deilman may be out for good. That's gotta burn.

And I've said it once and I'll say it again: I don't think the Ravens are ever going to do anything in the post-season with Cam Cameron calling the plays. The guy is a hack who got by thanks to a HoF RB in San Diego. Without LT, those Chargers teams weren't anything special.

And now he's misusing Ray Rice. And so help me god if I see Anquan Boldin running deep routes one more time....grr....

Stupid. It's stupid.

[jth1331]

If the Ravens walked into Mile High and lost, would I be surprised? No. The Ravens suck on the road. But if the Broncos had to go into Pittsburgh, I think they'd come out thrashed.

The Steelers have a stout, tough defense. Their problem tends to come against teams like the Packers who spread them out and pick them apart. The Broncos trying to run right at the Steelers would have Dick LeBeau salavating. In the past decade, there has not been a team overall better against the run than the Steelers.

PLUS the Steelers could run up the score pretty quickly too. Ben and that young group of WRs plus Miller and Mendenhall should put an easy 30+ on the Broncos defense.

So no, the Steelers would not be a good matchup for the Broncos.


Honestly, I think the Broncos could give the Steelers or Ravens a good game in that wild card round at home. The Steelers are more of a threat because of their passing game. I do think LeBeau would blitz like crazy to stop the run and force Tebow to throw, Ravens maybe too. I think it could be close games ala the Bears and Jets games.
Against good offenses the Broncos have to play perfect. When they were, they were beating the Patriots.

[Sloopy]

The thing is that over the last few weeks, we had even begun to praise him a bit, saying that maybe he had some sort of epiphany but of course he did everything to prove us wrong in a big game...

[BeerBaron]

The thing is that over the last few weeks, we had even begun to praise him a bit, saying that maybe he had some sort of epiphany but of course he did everything to prove us wrong in a big game...

Mike Martz had **** figured out when Cutler was at QB too. Then, when he got hurt, he reverted back to his 7-step drops with no pass protection BS.

So many offensive coordinators are trying to wow potential employers with a flashy offense when simply running the ball would do wonders.

Cam Cameron is no exception. It's easy to call a balanced attack when your throttling an overmatched Colts team. Then, when pressed by a surging Chargers team on the road, he reverted back to his old ways.

It's unfortunate and predictable, and may have cost you a shot at the division and homefield advantage.

[49erNation85]

I didn't get to watch any games Sunday. But I was bummed the Broncos lost but knew it was coming against the Pats just because their offense is just so much more better. But it did look like his passing stats got a little bit better. But hey you can't fault them for making the play offs on the Tebow win streak. If it wasn't for that they would be in a **** hole right now. I do agree that they do need a better RB or TE if they can grab one in first two rounds of the draft. The defense could use either a stud dt or de maybe a stronger cb to help out champ.

[BeerBaron]

I didn't get to watch any games Sunday. But I was bummed the Broncos lost but knew it was coming against the Pats just because their offense is just so much more better. But it did look like his passing stats got a little bit better. But hey you can't fault them for making the play offs on the Tebow win streak. If it wasn't for that they would be in a **** hole right now. I do agree that they do need a better RB or TE if they can grab one in first two rounds of the draft. The defense could use either a stud dt or de maybe a stronger cb to help out champ.

True, but like I said, it was against the godawful Patriots pass D. Anyone else who had a career day through the air against the Pats would have an asterisk put next to it reading "Against the Pats."

Not Tebow. It's spun into a positive that he looked slightly less terrible as a passer against the league's worst pass defense.

And, quite frankly, you're not going to last long in this league when "11/22" is a "good passing day" for a QB.

Will he improve as a passer given an offseason? Probably. But will defenses be able to improve against him as well with more tape and time to study? Almost certainly.

I expect him to have a definite "sophomore slump" next year. (Considering it as a 2nd year of starting most of the games.)

[Brent]

And I've said it once and I'll say it again: I don't think the Ravens are ever going to do anything in the post-season with Cam Cameron calling the plays. The guy is a hack who got by thanks to a HoF RB in San Diego. Without LT, those Chargers teams weren't anything special.
Flacco said he was upset when Jim Zorn was fired as his QB coach, I wonder if they would bring him back as OC.

[Sloopy]

Mike Martz had **** figured out when Cutler was at QB too. Then, when he got hurt, he reverted back to his 7-step drops with no pass protection BS.

So many offensive coordinators are trying to wow potential employers with a flashy offense when simply running the ball would do wonders.

Cam Cameron is no exception. It's easy to call a balanced attack when your throttling an overmatched Colts team. Then, when pressed by a surging Chargers team on the road, he reverted back to his old ways.

It's unfortunate and predictable, and may have cost you a shot at the division and homefield advantage.

Here's hoping the 9'ers win tonight

Flacco said he was upset when Jim Zorn was fired as his QB coach, I wonder if they would bring him back as OC.

I wouldn't mind. I just want Cam out

[BeerBaron]

Flacco said he was upset when Jim Zorn was fired as his QB coach, I wonder if they would bring him back as OC.

It's a possibility, but they'd almost certainly have to fire Cameron who I can only imagine was the reason the Ravens got rid of Zorn. (Conflicting philosophies or some such thing...)

And I don't think the Ravens fire Cameron.

[Breed]

Now do you guys believe the NFL is fixed? Colts get their first win and Pack get their frst lost on the same day. just a coincidence i guess?

[keylime_5]

people have been talking so much about Tebow.......but the Broncos defense is the real story as to why they've been so successful. They've kept the team in games and Tebow worked his 4th quarter magic to put the Broncos over the top. This week, they play a team that scores 41 points on them, so of course it's gonna be near impossible for them to win again. Not really Tebow's fault, but of course he'll get the undeserved blame just as he got most of the credit for their wins even though it wasn't all deserved either.

[Brent]

It's a possibility, but they'd almost certainly have to fire Cameron who I can only imagine was the reason the Ravens got rid of Zorn. (Conflicting philosophies or some such thing...)

And I don't think the Ravens fire Cameron.
Zorn is a short-passing, run-the-ball type of guy, of course he conflicts with Cam's throw-a-40-yard-bomb-to-a-slowed-by-age Boldin.

[BeerBaron]

people have been talking so much about Tebow.......but the Broncos defense is the real story as to why they've been so successful. They've kept the team in games and Tebow worked his 4th quarter magic to put the Broncos over the top. This week, they play a team that scores 41 points on them, so of course it's gonna be near impossible for them to win again. Not really Tebow's fault, but of course he'll get the undeserved blame just as he got most of the credit for their wins even though it wasn't all deserved either.

From my week 11 thoughts:

The Broncos defense is far from invulnerable, though Von Miller is playing crazy right now. He has just as much, if not more, of a hand in the Broncos recent success than does Tebow.

From my week 12 thoughts:

I also like how the Tebow story has completely overshadowed Von Miller's impact on the team. He's playing out of his mind right now and, like I said last week, is a bigger reason for the team's success than Tebow. I didn't see Tebow making the tackle for a loss to knock the Chargers into worse FG range for their OT miss. I haven't seen Tebow rack up 4 sacks in their last 3 games, all wins.

As you can see, I've tried crediting the non-Tebow parts of the team, specifically Von Miller.

The voice of reason is often the quietest one in a room full of shouts.

[brat316]

HAhah what you think about this? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82531d1a/article/steelers-lb-harrison-tweets-criticism-of-dumervils-sack?module=HP11_content_stream

[BeerBaron]

Zorn is a short-passing, run-the-ball type of guy, of course he conflicts with Cam's throw-a-40-yard-bomb-to-a-slowed-by-age Boldin.

I'd try to find some old o-line coach. He'll use those TEs in Pitta and Dickson (who, if used properly, could be as effective as the Patriots TE duo,) and feed the hell out of Ray Rice. He should absolutely get 20 CARRIES a game, not just touches, but ball-to-the-gut CARRIES. Sent Torrey Smith over top every few plays and let Flacco sling it off of play action.

But no. Instead, we'll get more of Pitta and Dickson in to block, Rice getting 10 carries and Anquan Boldin running 40 yards down the field with no separation.

[murdamal86]

The Broncos just got beat by a better team yesterday, plain a simple. I saw a stat where teams are 1-33 when -3 in the TO margain and yesterday wasn't any different.

About Gabbert, i'm SOOO torn on him. As a Jax fan, I really am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt in that he shouldn't be out there and our WR's are trash but some things he do back there......i'm not sure if it can be corrected. Some QB's that are "difference makers" have "it" and you see "it" from the start or in spurts but with him....I can't say I see it. I get annoyed when fellow Jags fan say "give him time to throw and he looks good" and I say "but this IS the NFL, how often is he going to get time in the pocket, he needs to make place when the pocket isn't clean".

If he doesn't have 3 seconds and a clean pocket to throw, it's a sack or throw away.

[BeerBaron]

The Broncos just got beat by a better team yesterday, plain a simple. I saw a stat where teams are 1-33 when -3 in the TO margain and yesterday wasn't any different.

About Gabbert, i'm SOOO torn on him. As a Jax fan, I really am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt in that he shouldn't be out there and our WR's are trash but some things he do back there......i'm not sure if it can be corrected. Some QB's that are "difference makers" have "it" and you see "it" from the start or in spurts but with him....I can't say I see it. I get annoyed when fellow Jags fan say "give him time to throw and he looks good" and I say "but this IS the NFL, how often is he going to get time in the pocket, he needs to make place when the pocket isn't clean".

If he doesn't have 3 seconds and a clean pocket to throw, it's a sack or throw away.

See, that is what you look for in rookie QBs. Peyton Manning and John Elway and Troy Aikman are frequently cited examples of HoF QBs who struggled as rookies. Now, I wasn't alive for Elway and was barely alive for Aikman, so I can't say this from personal experience, but I have a strong feeling they weren't as bad as Gabbert and at least showed some flashes of potential.

Gabbert's flashes of potential are somewhere between -1 and 0. Ponder has had them, Locker has had them, Dalton has them, Newton has about 10 per game and even TJ Yates had some in the Bengals game. (And even yesterday when he was bad, he was worlds better than Gabbert.)

And the biggest kicker for Gabbert is that it was obvious from his college games that he would have these types of problems in the pros. Yet that didn't stop the Jaguars who happily selected him high and are going to be stuck with him.

[nobodyinparticular]

In the Denver-NE game, we saw two forces at work.

1) An elite-tier team outplaying an inferior opponent
2) The law of averages

The first one should go without saying. Frequently you will see a lesser team have some degree of success against a more talented, better coached team. You need only look at the KC-GB and Indy-Ten games for evidence of this. You also can see this in the first quarter of the Denver-NE game. However the better team will generally win the game. NE is a better team than Denver and this was played out over the 4 quarters of the game on Sunday.

For the second element of the game against NE, I will dispute the concept that Denver should have won the game but got unlucky. I would say the turnovers should have been expected. The Broncos have actually been exceptionally lucky with the football over the past 9 games, but turnovers happen in football. Especially if your QB is not Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady. The wins over the past 7 weeks were based on a good deal of luck in the turnover department, especially when you consider the very bad misses from Tebow in the passing game. This game's turnovers were the evening out of the expected averages. Teams turnover the ball. It happens. And The better team won on Sunday.

[Bengals78]

HAhah what you think about this? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82531d1a/article/steelers-lb-harrison-tweets-criticism-of-dumervils-sack?module=HP11_content_stream

When I have kids, I will show them this video.

1. If you play defense, this is how you tackle.
2. If you play offense, dont let this happen to you.

As for Harrison, I dont like him at all. Not one bit. But I dont know the hit he refers to, but he has pretty much burned every bridge of goodwill he had and wonders why no one likes him or feels bad.

[jrdrylie]

Honestly, I think the Broncos could give the Steelers or Ravens a good game in that wild card round at home. The Steelers are more of a threat because of their passing game. I do think LeBeau would blitz like crazy to stop the run and force Tebow to throw, Ravens maybe too. I think it could be close games ala the Bears and Jets games.
Against good offenses the Broncos have to play perfect. When they were, they were beating the Patriots.

I think the Broncos could beat the Ravens. I'm not saying they are better than the Ravens, but Baltimore has some inexplicable games. Their defense should be able to stop Tebow. But who knows about the offense. Ray Rice may lose two yards on his first carry, which would cause Cam Cameron to completely abandon the run, and Rice finishes the game with 7 carries for 26 yards.

The Steelers are a different story. They have the offense to get a lead on the Broncos. They have the top defense in the league and the 6th ranked rush defense. I'm pretty confident that the Steelers would blow out the Broncos if meet in the playoffs.

[BeerBaron]

The Steelers are a different story. They have the offense to get a lead on the Broncos. They have the top defense in the league and the 6th ranked rush defense. I'm pretty confident that the Steelers would blow out the Broncos if meet in the playoffs.

Especially IN Pittsburgh. You don't go in there in January where all the psychotic rosey cheeked fans have their terrible towels a waving and come away with a victory. Especially not a team who can do nothing but run really.

[murdamal86]

See, that is what you look for in rookie QBs. Peyton Manning and John Elway and Troy Aikman are frequently cited examples of HoF QBs who struggled as rookies. Now, I wasn't alive for Elway and was barely alive for Aikman, so I can't say this from personal experience, but I have a strong feeling they weren't as bad as Gabbert and at least showed some flashes of potential.

Gabbert's flashes of potential are somewhere between -1 and 0. Ponder has had them, Locker has had them, Dalton has them, Newton has about 10 per game and even TJ Yates had some in the Bengals game. (And even yesterday when he was bad, he was worlds better than Gabbert.)

And the biggest kicker for Gabbert is that it was obvious from his college games that he would have these types of problems in the pros. Yet that didn't stop the Jaguars who happily selected him high and are going to be stuck with him.

I agree with all of this. Even when Peyton threw 2,000 int's his rookie year, i'm 25 so it wasn't like I was a "know it all" back when he was a rookie, I remember people saying that they STILL say "it" in him and he still had 26 TD passes.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00/gamelog/1998/#stats::none

I want Gabbert to br solid-great-etc because we here in Jax NEED this LOL but i'm not encouraged. I see more JP Losman than Matt Ryan but I still will wait until we attempt to surround him w/playmakers and give him a complete offseason to improve.

[Sloopy]

Looking back at the Raven's game:

Rice: 10 carries 5.7 ypc

The run was essentially abandoned half way through the second quarter when we went down 10-7... As a result our drives became shorter and we ended up losing the TOP battle by almost 10 points.

[BeerBaron]

Looking back at the Raven's game:

Rice: 10 carries 5.7 ypc

The run was essentially abandoned half way through the second quarter when we went down 10-7... As a result our drives became shorter and we ended up losing the TOP battle by almost 10 points.

Against the 21st ranked run defense to boot.

Here's what the Ravens should do:

As long as it isn't 3rd and longer than 7, Cam should flip a coin. If heads, he can call whatever play he was going to call. If tails, he hands to Ray Rice.

That would balance things out a bit.

[Sloopy]

Against the 21st ranked run defense to boot.

Here's what the Ravens should do:

As long as it isn't 3rd and longer than 7, Cam should flip a coin. If heads, he can call whatever play he was going to call. If tails, he hands to Ray Rice.

That would balance things out a bit.

I like it, now we just need a double sided tails coin.

I mean there were downs where we, passed first past second passed third. One of the passes would go for like 6 yards and the other two incomplete... now if on one of the incompletions we had rice run the ball for a few yards instead, thats a conversion.

[diabsoule]

I find your lack of Saints mentions disturbing

[BeerBaron]

I find your lack of Saints mentions disturbing

You crushed the Vikings. That deserves no mention.

[DraftSavant]

It's not getting a ton of pub in the media, but Skelton and Patrick Peterson have quietly brought the Cardinals to 7-7.

Also, **** Kevin Kolb.

[BeerBaron]

Maybe it was the Cardinals plan all the long....trade for Kolb so Fitzgerald will resign long term but turn Skeltonmania loose...

Brilliant really.

[Brent]

Also, **** Kevin Kolb.
They could release him after this season or even after 2012, for minimal penalty. Skelton appears to know the system, having been there a while, and has some chemistry with those WRs, so of course he looks better. That and Kevin Kolb sucks.

[BeerBaron]

Kolb does indeed suck. He's not Blaine Gabbert bad, but he has a below average arm and lacks any real pocket presence. The trade for him convinced Fitzgerald to resign long term. That makes the Kolb trade look like a win even if Kolb sucks.

[Sloopy]

Kolb does indeed suck. He's not Blaine Gabbert bad, but he has a below average arm and lacks any real pocket presence. The trade for him convinced Fitzgerald to resign long term. That makes the Kolb trade look like a win even if Kolb sucks.

It's sad, but undoubtedly, some team who needs a QB will undoubtedly be willing to make a trade for Kolb...

[Miaoww]

The Chiefs and Colts victories are stealing a little of the Panthers' thunder. Winning on the road against one of the best teams in the AFC with a rookie QB is pretty impressive.

[murdamal86]

Hands to the face being an automatic first down is an absolute stupid penalty

[BeerBaron]

Illegal contact is far worse. There's no way that BS should be an automatic first down. Neither should defensive holding. 5 yards and a free play I'll give you, like offsides. That is all though.

I agree with DPI being a spot foul. Otherwise, once you're beyond 15 yards, there is no reason NOT to interfere if you're otherwise beaten.

[fenikz]

Kolb is 5 times better than Skelton at this point, not that I don't love Skelton's upside but anyone who thinks he gives us a better chance of winning right now simply hasn't watched either play

he's throwing 2 INT a game for **** sake, but our defense is elite so we will continue to bail him out

[AntoinCD]

Illegal contact is far worse. There's no way that BS should be an automatic first down. Neither should defensive holding. 5 yards and a free play I'll give you, like offsides. That is all though.

I agree with DPI being a spot foul. Otherwise, once you're beyond 15 yards, there is no reason NOT to interfere if you're otherwise beaten.

Yeah if you let someone like Mike Wallace get a step on you 25 yards down the field why not just start grabbing at him. Big Ben is so good with the deep ball that 9 times out of 10 he's gonna hit Wallace in stride and it's a TD. Give up the 25 yard foul and play another set of downs but if it's only 15 then you'd be stupid not to do it.

[BeerBaron]

At absolute best with Kolb, you're going to get a game manager. Maybe you would be satisfied with that, but I wouldn't be.

Skelton has the lower floor but much higher ceiling.

Given those two options, I'd roll the dice with Skelton.

[fenikz]

You're acting like Skelton is some how as good as Kolb is right now and is leading the Cardinals to victory

[BeerBaron]

You're acting like Skelton is some how as good as Kolb is right now and is leading the Cardinals to victory

I said no such thing. I said that Skelton has the higher ceiling but lower floor, and that given the choice between gambling with him or rolling with a game manager in Kolb, I'd take Skelton long term.

I didn't like Kolb coming out, I didn't like Kolb with the Eagles, I didn't like the trade to get Kolb, and if I were running the show, I'd see what the much more talented though raw Skelton could provide long term over the average-at-best Kolb.

[fenikz]

I wonder what Skelton would get in a trade, if Barkley doesn't come out someone will be looking for a QB

[RCAChainGang]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to BeerBaron again."

[jrdrylie]

Illegal contact is far worse. There's no way that BS should be an automatic first down. Neither should defensive holding. 5 yards and a free play I'll give you, like offsides. That is all though.

I agree with DPI being a spot foul. Otherwise, once you're beyond 15 yards, there is no reason NOT to interfere if you're otherwise beaten.

I think defensive holding should be a ten-yard penalty, just like offensive holding is. Illegal contact should definitely not be a first down. 80% of the time, the defensive player touches the receiver with his pinky finger and gets the penalty.

Agree with you on defensive pass interference too. I remember watching the Georgia Tech-Wake Forest game in the ACC Championship game a few years back. Wake couldn't cover Calvin Johnson at all. Reggie Ball just threw the ball as high and as far as he could and every time the Wake players tackled Johnson right before the ball got there. Better to get a 15 yard penalty than give up a 70 yard touchdown.

[njx9]

Interesting. They call it PI all the time though because the defender doesn't play the ball and prevents the receiver from making a play. Especially on an under thrown ball.

i had this argument with a buddy a couple of weeks ago. it's most definitely not a penalty, but like you, i've still seen it called hundreds of times.

Did Von Miller play yesterday? Was someone else wearing his jersey?

What I saw from Tamba Hali was 10x the player I saw from Miller yesterday?

i'm curious if you actually watched the game or not. von got a sack on one of the few plays brady didn't get the ball out in under 1.5 seconds. for most of the first half, brady was getting rid of the ball extremely quickly, i'd guess in part to avoid doom and von. at some point, we decided that letting him pick us apart on short passes wasn't fun, so we started rushing 3 and letting him pick us apart on any passes he felt like throwing.

[MetSox17]

The reason why face guarding gets called as a penalty on underthrown balls is because there's interference that goes on when a WR jumps up for the ball and the face guarding player is driving him forward, preventing him from making a play on the underthrow. That's really the only time i ever see it called, and i'd venture out to guess that'd be the reason why.

[BeerBaron]

The reason why face guarding gets called as a penalty on underthrown balls is because there's interference that goes on when a WR jumps up for the ball and the face guarding player is driving him forward, preventing him from making a play on the underthrow. That's really the only time i ever see it called, and i'd venture out to guess that'd be the reason why.

But there'd have to be contact then and it would no longer be face guarding, just plain old interference.

True face guarding where the defender never touches the WR isn't a penalty and should never, ever be called. If it is, it's interpreted incorrectly.

[Jvig43]

This would never even be an issue if someone would just hurry up and make a time machine to travel back and kill Pollian already.

[MetSox17]

But there'd have to be contact then and it would no longer be face guarding, just plain old interference.

True face guarding where the defender never touches the WR isn't a penalty and should never, ever be called. If it is, it's interpreted incorrectly.

Right, it is never called faceguarding, but sometimes commentators will make the mistake of referring it as faceguarding, because in that case, turning around for the ball would have allowed for the incidental contact to go unpenalized since they were both playing the ball. What i'm saying is, the only time you can ever really make a case for "faceguarding" is on underthrown passes, and even then it's just pass interference. I can't remember the last time i heard a referee refer to a penalty as "faceguarding".

[MetSox17]

This would never even be an issue if someone would just hurry up and make a time machine to travel back and kill Pollian already.

He's a douche, and all the pansy-ness being added to the league is definitely deteriorating the value of hard-nosed defenses, but some of the rules that were implemented needed to be made, they just need to be tweaked. There's no way what Ty Law did to Harrison in the playoffs that year should have been allowed, but i don't think any little touch past five yards deserves an automatic first down, either.

[BeerBaron]

He's a douche, and all the pansy-ness being added to the league is definitely deteriorating the value of hard-nosed defenses, but some of the rules that were implemented needed to be made, they just need to be tweaked. There's no way what Ty Law did to Harrison in the playoffs that year should have been allowed, but i don't think any little touch past five yards deserves an automatic first down, either.

I had no problem with it, and neither did any other team in the 90 years of professional football before that.

Law was just an extreme example. His job was to take Marvin Harrison out of the game by any means necessary, and did.

The "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams had a similar finesse offense with little receivers and rewrote record books.

High octane offenses existed before that, but Polian didn't like that some team with a jerk-ass head coach could knock his Colts out of the playoffs every year. So, instead of changing his system, he abused his position on the competition committee to change the rules.

No team has directly benefited more from the pro-offense rule changes than has the Colts. And Polian's broken system STILL only managed one Superbowl victory despite the rules being set up for his exact style of team to dominate.

[MetSox17]

I had no problem with it, and neither did any other team in the 90 years of professional football before that.

Law was just an extreme example. His job was to take Marvin Harrison out of the game by any means necessary, and did.

The "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams had a similar finesse offense with little receivers and rewrote record books.

High octane offenses existed before that, but Polian didn't like that some team with a jerk-ass head coach could knock his Colts out of the playoffs every year. So, instead of changing his system, he abused his position on the competition committee to change the rules.

No team has directly benefited more from the pro-offense rule changes than has the Colts. And Polian's broken system STILL only managed one Superbowl victory despite the rules being set up for his exact style of team to dominate.

I understand what you're saying, but why should one style of play be favored by the rules over another? Every team should have the right to build themselves up however they choose, they shouldn't have to change their philosophy to exploit the rules of the game. I understand that now it's probably more favorable towards finesse passing offenses, which is why i conceded that the rules definitely need tweaking, but before it would basically let corners tackle players down before the ball was in the air. The same way you blame the Colts for exploiting their rules for a championship, the Patriots did the exact same in their "dynasty" period. Do you think it's a coincidence that since the new rules were more harshly enforced, the Patriots have been an easy out in the playoffs? They're no longer allowed to play dirty like they used to, and while it has watered down offensive accomplishments, i like it better now than it was before. Again, it needs to be polished, but i they're rules that are by all means, fair.

[yodapoop]

The GSOT....I miss that :(. I STILL HAVE THE CARDINALS!!!

[MetSox17]

I understand what you're saying, but why should one style of play be favored by the rules over another? Every team should have the right to build themselves up however they choose, they shouldn't have to change their philosophy to exploit the rules of the game. I understand that now it's probably more favorable towards finesse passing offenses, which is why i conceded that the rules definitely need tweaking, but before it would basically let corners tackle players down before the ball was in the air. The same way you blame the Colts for exploiting their rules for a championship, the Patriots did the exact same in their "dynasty" period. Do you think it's a coincidence that since the new rules were more harshly enforced, the Patriots have been an easy out in the playoffs? They're no longer allowed to play dirty like they used to, and while it has watered down offensive accomplishments, i like it better now than it was before. Again, it needs to be polished, but i they're rules that are by all means, fair.

**** a page trap.

[BeerBaron]

But the Patriots didn't invent those rules to make it happen. They were on the books for...all of NFL history?...and simply built their team as such.

Yet offenses still found ways to be successful in all that time. Dan Marino set the passing record with them on the board and it's only now going to be broken.

What Polian did was directly influence a rule change to benefit his team. He lost 4 Superbowls with the Bills with the same finesse offense getting crushed in the postseason by teams willing to play more physical.

Polian smooth talked what was already a fairly pro-offense competition committee to get the rule change passed. They aren't there to help one team, they're there to adjust the rules as in order to protect the sanctity of the entire league.

That rule change hurt more teams than it helped. It has become far more difficult to play a truly dominant defense. We'll probably never see another 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens because it's harder to defend the pass and it's harder to legally hit the QB.

Look at the past 2 Superbowl champions: The Saints and Packers. Both invested heavily on offense while assembling good enough defenses that bent-but-didn't-break while trying to force turnovers.

And it can be traced back to Bill Polian. I truly, truly hate that man. There will be a special place in football hell for him and I can only hope that once his influence is away, the pendulum will swing back towards balance in the league that he worked so hard to destroy.

[soybean]

The Chiefs and Colts victories are stealing a little of the Panthers' thunder. Winning on the road against one of the best teams in the AFC with a rookie QB is pretty impressive.

you mean winning on the road against another rookie qb and a team that already clinched the division.

[MetSox17]

But the Patriots didn't invent those rules to make it happen. They were on the books for...all of NFL history?...and simply built their team as such.

Yet offenses still found ways to be successful in all that time. Dan Marino set the passing record with them on the board and it's only now going to be broken.

What Polian did was directly influence a rule change to benefit his team. He lost 4 Superbowls with the Bills with the same finesse offense getting crushed in the postseason by teams willing to play more physical.

Polian smooth talked what was already a fairly pro-offense competition committee to get the rule change passed. They aren't there to help one team, they're there to adjust the rules as in order to protect the sanctity of the entire league.

That rule change hurt more teams than it helped. It has become far more difficult to play a truly dominant defense. We'll probably never see another 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens because it's harder to defend the pass and it's harder to legally hit the QB.

Look at the past 2 Superbowl champions: The Saints and Packers. Both invested heavily on offense while assembling good enough defenses that bent-but-didn't-break while trying to force turnovers.

And it can be traced back to Bill Polian. I truly, truly hate that man. There will be a special place in football hell for him and I can only hope that once his influence is away, the pendulum will swing back towards balance in the league that he worked so hard to destroy.

Again, i'm just playing devil's advocate here, but why is the blame directly put on Bill Polian? If it was so glaringly obvious that the rules would benefit his team only, why would it get approved by the 8-man competition committee?

You won't see another 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens for a while because it was 15 years in between when a truly dominant defensive team won a championship mostly because of the defense. It's just that rare, those types of teams take years to build, and all the cards have to fall together. The league is cyclical and eventually someone is gonna take the opposite route of what everyone is doing and it will work for a while until everyone copies it.

I just don't see how it is such a huge inconvenience for players to learn how to tackle and cover without grabbing jerseys 20 yards down the field.

[BeerBaron]

Look, it wasn't a problem for years before and I'll settle for the fact that Polian is only ever going to have one ring out of it.

If he wasn't on the committee, I contend that the change doesn't happen. No one saw it as a problem or thought to change it in the entire league's existence prior. I don't think it would have been changed then either.

And why do the other teams and players have to change? Polian could have just changed to draft more physical WRs and played a less finesse system. But that's always been his thing and it had just kept on failing him when it mattered most up to that one year where they finally won one.

It's changed the league for the worse in my opinion. Before, you could build a great defensive team, or a great offensive team, or say **** it and build both.

Now, you have to have a good offense. The defense only needs to be "good enough." Look at the QBs Superbowl winning teams have had since then: Peyton, Eli, Ben, Brees and Rodgers. That's 5 of the top 6-7 QBs in the league right there.

Gone are the days where you'll be able to limp with a Trent Dilfer to the Superbowl.

[Rosebud]

The sad part is that you could have beaten ALL of those teams you mentioned if your coordinators called plays and schemes appropriate to your talent.

If the Giants had Spags as a DC and he was calling aggressive pressures and man coverage, The Giants are probably in conversation for AT LEAST a bye in the playoffs. Not .500 and barely going to get in, if at all.

Why do you like making me sad?

[descendency]

But not Tebow. Even if defeat nothing but positives are mentioned. Even in his "best passing game" he completed just half his passes.

The "half of his passes" is a bit misleading, because a lot of those incompletions are throw-aways.

The better statistic to describe his performance: "big passing plays in Patriots territory: zero."

[bantx]

I is disappointed Ravens talk over chajaz

[hockey619]

No team has directly benefited more from the pro-offense rule changes than has the Colts. And Polian's broken system STILL only managed one Superbowl victory despite the rules being set up for his exact style of team to dominate.

its cause karma got him. He got selfish and egotistical and changed the rules, but since then his drafting has been brutal. so hes slowly destroyed his team as other teams enjoyed the fruits of his rules.

Ultimate kick to the sack: when the pats used his rules to go undefeated. a giant 'suck it polian' from belichick

[Miaoww]

you mean winning on the road against another rookie qb and a team that already clinched the division.

Yep. What a nice little stomping it was too.

[descendency]

Tebow did play well though. When everything was going the Pats way, things self destructed though, and for gods sake I don't know why the Broncos offensive cordinator doesn't run screen passes, quick hitches, quick slants, etc. Nearly everything is going down the field.

How many QBs have failed to throw 200 yards, a passing TD, or better than 50% against the Patriots?

Mark Sanchez, Tyler Palko, and Tim Tebow.

How many have done all 3?

Tim Tebow.

Even if you take off the 6 points scored on the two turnovers that Tim didn't commit, the Patriots still won by 12. If you give them the extra point they botched, it's still an 11 point game.

They played the game to force Tim to throw from the pocket and he couldn't do it.

[BeerBaron]

Some thoughts on last night...

Ben should have been pulled much sooner. It was clear that his injury was badly limiting him and with the 49ers pass rush unimpeded all night, there was no sense in risking further injury by leaving him out there.

I realize the game didn't get out of hand until very late, but I would have pulled him after halftime. The score was still close, but I think it was clear that he wasn't anywhere near his usual self in the first half. He wasn't helping the team by being out there. Pull him and make sure he's healthy for the eventual playoff run.

As for the 49ers, their defense looked fantastic. Their pass rush was in the Steelers backfield as Aldon Smith had a DRotY caliber performance. The 49ers front was impenetrable and their secondary bent but didn't break against the pass between the 20s, and took advantage of the turnovers they were given.

But Alex Smith didn't look great. I think the guy is pretty clearly a game manager at best. He's far from the "top 10" QB some 49ers fans may try and argue. (Unless you extend the "top 10" to include like 16 names.....)

He struggled to move the ball on more drives than not and came away with more 3 and outs than you'd want to see out of a playoff QB.

There is going to come a game where the 49ers will need him to step up and carry the team. Is he going to be capable of that when the call comes? I don't know...

I'm wary of the 49ers for that reason right there.

[BeerBaron]

And just to curtail arguments that Smith is a top 10 QB before they can happen, here is a list of QBs I'd take over Smith:

Rodgers
Cutler
Stafford
Eli
Romo
Vick

(I'm through 2 divisions and already at 6...his odds of being in the top 10 are looking unlikely...)

Brees
Ryan
Newton

(9 in the NFC alone...)

Big Ben
Brady
Healthy Peyton
Schaub
Rivers

There are 14 I'd unquestioningly take over Alex Smith. He's in that next group of guys with guys like Sanchez, Flacco, Freeman, Cassel, Palmer, Fitzpatrick, Dalton, and Bradford who are either too young (Dalton) or have some serious flaws (the rest.)

So yeah, Alex Smith is more like a 15-23 ranked QB. Somewhere in there.

DO NOT quote me "Player A" vs. "Player B" stat garbage. IF that's the best argument that you have then you've only sealed the argument in my favor. Looking with my own eyes at Smith while playing games leads me to this conclusion.

[Ravens1991]

Good post about the 49ers. They are a carbon copy of 2008 Ravens. I think they can win some playoff games but not a serious super bowl contender. It will be interesting to see if Jim ***** it all up by his coordinator choices like John did.

[njx9]

They played the game to force Tim to throw from the pocket and he couldn't do it.

he was far too busy failing to read the pass rush and repeatedly bailing directly into it because he doesn't have any real understanding of what's going on on the football field. or because he watched some gabbert game tape and liked the strategy.

[jrdrylie]

And just to curtail arguments that Smith is a top 10 QB before they can happen, here is a list of QBs I'd take over Smith:

Rodgers
Cutler
Stafford
Eli
Romo
Vick

(I'm through 2 divisions and already at 6...his odds of being in the top 10 are looking unlikely...)

Brees
Ryan
Newton

(9 in the NFC alone...)

Big Ben
Brady
Healthy Peyton
Schaub
Rivers

There are 14 I'd unquestioningly take over Alex Smith. He's in that next group of guys with guys like Sanchez, Flacco, Freeman, Cassel, Palmer, Fitzpatrick, Dalton, and Bradford who are either too young (Dalton) or have some serious flaws (the rest.)

So yeah, Alex Smith is more like a 15-23 ranked QB. Somewhere in there.

DO NOT quote me "Player A" vs. "Player B" stat garbage. IF that's the best argument that you have then you've only sealed the argument in my favor. Looking with my own eyes at Smith while playing games leads me to this conclusion.

I agree with most of your list. However, I would actually put Flacco in the list of guys I would definitely take over Smith. He takes a bunch of flack, but he is the winningest QB in his first four years in NFL history. Smith was been absolutely mediocre for six season and has been above average for one. To me, it's no contest. And I probably wouldn't put Vick in the absolutely better than Smith section. He's actually one of my least favorite QBs in the league. He's injury prone, turnover prone, and inconsistent. Is he better than Smith? Probably, but to me he isn't the surefire top-ten guy that most people think he is.

Back to Smith, I have a hard time evaluating him. He's having a decent season. But is it because Jim Harbaugh has crafted a system that makes him look good or has the light finally come on for Smith?

[BeerBaron]

Good post about the 49ers. They are a carbon copy of 2008 Ravens. I think they can win some playoff games but not a serious super bowl contender. It will be interesting to see if Jim ***** it all up by his coordinator choices like John did.

Fangio has the defense playing well and Jim is going to keep some say over that offense, so I think they'll be alright in that department. I just worry about their long term ceiling with Smith at QB.

I agree with most of your list. However, I would actually put Flacco in the list of guys I would definitely take over Smith. He takes a bunch of flack, but he is the winningest QB in his first four years in NFL history. Smith was been absolutely mediocre for six season and has been above average for one. To me, it's no contest. And I probably wouldn't put Vick in the absolutely better than Smith section. He's actually one of my least favorite QBs in the league. He's injury prone, turnover prone, and inconsistent. Is he better than Smith? Probably, but to me he isn't the surefire top-ten guy that most people think he is.

Back to Smith, I have a hard time evaluating him. He's having a decent season. But is it because Jim Harbaugh has crafted a system that makes him look good or has the light finally come on for Smith?

I would say it's about 60-40 in favor of the system, though Smith has shown improvement. Improving from an F to a C+ is solid but I don't think Smith has it in him to be an A+ QB.

As for Flacco, it looked like he finally grew up in that Steelers game where he led the long comeback drive. But he lost a bucket load of goodwill in my eyes in that Chargers game. Cam Cameron getting pass wacky way too soon didn't help, but it was Flacco who was throwing the picks right down the middle of the field.

[SchizophrenicBatman]

Alex Smith is this year's Matt Cassel. He isn't good, everybody knows it - including his coach, but as long as his team keeps winning they're going to pay lip service to him.

[BeerBaron]

Alex Smith is this year's Matt Cassel. He isn't good, everybody knows it - including his coach, but as long as his team keeps winning they're going to pay lip service to him.

The problem is, do you risk a step down by letting him walk at the end of the season? His contract is up and, while one can rightly question Smith's ceiling and long term potential, do they risk moving on from him to someone completely unproven?

I don't think they will. So for the next 2-3 years, or however long Smith's contract extension will be for, the 49ers will go only as far as Smith can take them.

[BeerBaron]

Fun stat from TMQ:

Stats of the Week No. 3: The Minnesota defense is on a streak of 27 touchdown passes allowed versus no interceptions.

What a god awful defense.

[phlysac]

But is it because Jim Harbaugh has crafted a system that makes him look good

Josh Johnson and Andrew Luck say hello in this discussion.

[jrdrylie]

Fun stat from TMQ:

Stats of the Week No. 3: The Minnesota defense is on a streak of 27 touchdown passes allowed versus no interceptions.

What a god awful defense.

That is absolutely miserable. I don't know which is worse. That stat of the fact that until Sunday, Indianapolis had a streak of over 500 minutes (over 8 games) where they didn't hold the lead once.

[BeerBaron]

That is absolutely miserable. I don't know which is worse. That stat of the fact that until Sunday, Indianapolis had a streak of over 500 minutes (over 8 games) where they didn't hold the lead once.

I can't think of a year where there were more truly pathetic teams than this year.

But this year, we are seeing some of the worst performances possible by multiple teams. The Colts, the Vikings, the Rams....horrible, horrible, horrible.

[jth1331]

I can't think of a year where there were more truly pathetic teams than this year.

But this year, we are seeing some of the worst performances possible by multiple teams. The Colts, the Vikings, the Rams....horrible, horrible, horrible.

Colts going from a playoff contending team, losing their QB and almost going winless
The Vikings have good talent at positions yet still look pathetic and might only win 2-3 games
the Rams offense looking like a Ford POS
Blaine Gabbert
Tampa Bay going from a decent looking 10-6, young team to an absolutely pathetic, nauseating 4 win team
Caleb Hanie and the other backup QB's who suck balls
And then the worst two defenses in the NFL are also the ones with the best records in the league.

[SuperMcGee]

The Bills were 0-23 on third down between two games against the Dolphins this year. This is helped in no small part by playcalls like the Tashard Choice Wildcat on 3rd-and-1. Why. WHY??

I'd be so depressed if we we hadn't beaten the Patriots.

[BeerBaron]

The wildcat needs to go away. Most of the teams who run it anymore shouldn't be at all.

Earl Bennett wildcats are still the worst. The best you can hope for is maybe like a 3 yard gain. That's it. It's never worked for more than that. Ever ever ever ever.

[DraftSavant]

I can't think of a year where there were more truly pathetic teams than this year.

But this year, we are seeing some of the worst performances possible by multiple teams. The Colts, the Vikings, the Rams....horrible, horrible, horrible.

Parity can suck my dick, the NFL product has been dogshit this year (especially the primetime schedule, holy ****).

[descendency]

Parity can suck my dick, the NFL product has been dogshit this year (especially the primetime schedule, holy ****).

You mean the Seattle and St Louis Monday Night Football game didn't do it for you?

[BeerBaron]

Parity can suck my dick, the NFL product has been dogshit this year (especially the primetime schedule, holy ****).

Too much Jaguars there....

How a barely .500 team earned 3 primetime games I'll never know. Even with a healthy Garrard, they wouldn't have been worth a damn.

A push by the NFL to help the franchise is all I can figure.

[BeerBaron]

And the Bucs, they're complete dog **** too. They can't move the ball and they can't stop ANYBODY.

If not for a few early victories, they'd be in the running for the worst team at the end of the year.

[descendency]

The NFL just needs to implement flex scheduling for all prime time games after like week 5. Monday and Sunday night. And Thursday.

If a game is broadcast nationwide, it should be subject to flex scheduling. That way we don't have to see the Seahawks and Rams.

[BeerBaron]

Games that aren't on Sunday would be hard to truly flex schedule.

My idea for Monday nights is to just schedule 2 games. Then, 2 weeks beforehand, one gets "downgraded" to Sunday afternoon.

It may not always result in a great matchup, but two games to pick from is better than being stuck with whoever the schedule makers thought would be good in the preseason.

Or just don't fully flesh out the schedule right away. Announce the games that will be played each week, but don't assign them to the primetime slots right away. About a month before each "game week," finalize the schedule and move some to Sunday night or Monday night.

Thursday nights I don't give a **** about until it's on a network everyone can get.

[DraftSavant]

Too much Jaguars there....

How a barely .500 team earned 3 primetime games I'll never know. Even with a healthy Garrard, they wouldn't have been worth a damn.

A push by the NFL to help the franchise is all I can figure.

They're my favorite team, and I ******* hate watching them play.

[SuperMcGee]

The wildcat needs to go away. Most of the teams who run it anymore shouldn't be at all.

Earl Bennett wildcats are still the worst. The best you can hope for is maybe like a 3 yard gain. That's it. It's never worked for more than that. Ever ever ever ever.

I didn't hate it for a while when Brad Smith was sneaking through the line to get those 1-2 yards for a first down pretty much every time. But eventually it doesn't even get that, and it messes with the rhythm of the offense. And then you try running it with Tashard Choice and fumble away your lead/momentimum.

I miss Freddy. Obviously. I hate when we have to try running inside. Spiller has done as well as you could expect him to - no blocking or inside running, but some nice outside gains, couple nice moves, and a load of targets in the pass game - but it still feels night and day. I'm very hopeful that he is starting to break out to some degree, but I'm afraid of how the organization might assess this late glimpse.

[jrdrylie]

They're my favorite team, and I ******* hate watching them play.

They are my second favorite team and I hate watching them play. I'm actually going to the Jacksonville-Indianapolis game on New Years. If I make it through that game without dying of boredom, it will be quite a feat.

[BeerBaron]

They are my second favorite team and I hate watching them play. I'm actually going to the Jacksonville-Indianapolis game on New Years. If I make it through that game without dying of boredom, it will be quite a feat.

Just watch Gabbert struggle. The Colts still have Freeney and Mathis right? Well ****, you might get to catch Gabbert dying of a heart attack.That would be well worth the ticket price in entertainment value.

[Rosebud]

The problem is, do you risk a step down by letting him walk at the end of the season? His contract is up and, while one can rightly question Smith's ceiling and long term potential, do they risk moving on from him to someone completely unproven?

I don't think they will. So for the next 2-3 years, or however long Smith's contract extension will be for, the 49ers will go only as far as Smith can take them.

I really think their best play is to franchise Smith, if they can afford it, or to sign him up for a long term deal that gives them an opt out after 2 years, like I think, Cassel's deal. Where he gets one more season to show progress and then if he's still the same middle of the road QB you let him n Kaep battle it out all season before cutting Smith at their opt out point.

[H.O.O.D]

Games that aren't on Sunday would be hard to truly flex schedule.

My idea for Monday nights is to just schedule 2 games. Then, 2 weeks beforehand, one gets "downgraded" to Sunday afternoon.

It may not always result in a great matchup, but two games to pick from is better than being stuck with whoever the schedule makers thought would be good in the preseason.

Or just don't fully flesh out the schedule right away. Announce the games that will be played each week, but don't assign them to the primetime slots right away. About a month before each "game week," finalize the schedule and move some to Sunday night or Monday night.

Thursday nights I don't give a **** about until it's on a network everyone can get.

Minus Thanksgiving, Thursday Night games should be moved to NBC or ABC. Or perhaps alternate FOX and CBS each week....and make the Thursday night games strictly divisional matchups.

Thanksgiving's new set up of FOX at 12, CBS at 4, NBC at 8 is fine. But I would prefer to alternate the teams playing each year. We the NFL fans (minus Cowboy and Lions fans) don't need to see the Cowboys and Lions every year.

Every Sunday night game should be able to be flexed out. Yes including week one.

I like the idea of scheduling 2 Monday Night games. However I think I'd prefer to just air them both (one on ESPN kicking off at 8:30 EST, the other on ESPN2 with a kickoff time of 7:45 EST).

[descendency]

Games that aren't on Sunday would be hard to truly flex schedule.

Not if the NFL notifies teams 2 weeks in advance, like they do for Sunday night.

If you have a thursday game, you are basically off limits.

[DraftSavant]

Not if the NFL notifies teams 2 weeks in advance, like they do for Sunday night.

If you have a thursday game, you are basically off limits.

Yeah, most coaches set up their practice schedules and teams set up their travel itineraries well in advance of the week of that particular game. Flexing Monday and Thursday nights could screw that up.

[BeerBaron]

Mondays wouldn't be as bad if you do what I said. A one day difference for one of the games being flexed off of Monday night to Sunday wouldn't be too bad.

[dan77733]

Just a few comments.....

Regarding the Giants, I say keep Coughlin if Spags gets fired from the Rams. Bring him back and all will be well in 2012.

The playoff seeding should stay the way it is because if for example, two teams in the same divison have better records than the other four playoff seeds, that would mean both of those teams would have a bye and a home playoff game. Sorry, but since the second team wasnt good enough to win their own division, why should they get rewarded with a bye and a home playoff game over a division winner? Sorry but I dont like or agree with your playoff seeding idea.

[BeerBaron]

Just a few comments.....

Regarding the Giants, I say keep Coughlin if Spags gets fired from the Rams. Bring him back and all will be well in 2012.

The playoff seeding should stay the way it is because if for example, two teams in the same divison have better records than the other four playoff seeds, that would mean both of those teams would have a bye and a home playoff game. Sorry, but since the second team wasnt good enough to win their own division, why should they get rewarded with a bye and a home playoff game over a division winner? Sorry but I dont like or agree with your playoff seeding idea.

We could potentially see a a 12-4 AFC North runner up playing at a .500 AFC West winner. No thanks. Barely winning your crappy division doesn't mean **** to me.

[BeerBaron]

So, for next week, I've decided to accept "mailbag" questions via PM. So PM me anything you'd like to see me answer.

With the holiday, I don't know that this will happen on Monday. If not, I'll make sure to post it next Tuesday.

[brat316]

The Eagles shall take Spags back.

[yodapoop]

The Eagles shall take Spags back.

Did we put him out of his misery yet? Jesus, who will even wanna coach our team. Believe me, Spags is a great coach, I love him, but NO ONE can win with this team, we ******* suck.

[BeerBaron]

The Eagles shall take Spags back.

You're stuck with Castillo, who is a close friend of Reid's and who won't be fired if you have a strong close to the year.

[DraftSavant]

I don't see how they can't fire Castillo.

[BeerBaron]

I don't see how they can't fire Castillo.

They're closing strong. If they somehow get into the playoffs, he ain't going anywhere.

Everyone is acting like the first 2/3 of the season didn't happen for Philly because OMG THEY'RE GOING ON A LATE SEASON RUN PLAYOFFZZZZZ!!! DREAM TEAMZZZ!!!

Unless they lose these last two games with pathetic defensive displays, I think Castillo is kept.

[JBCX]

What would be a worse fate as a fan of a team? Being stuck with Juan Castillo or being stuck with Jerry Angelo?

[DraftSavant]

What would be a worse fate as a fan of a team? Being stuck with Juan Castillo or being stuck with Jerry Angelo?

Being stuck with Blaine Gabbert.

[BeerBaron]

Being stuck with Blaine Gabbert.

Seconded..

[bigbluedefense]

Our defense is a joke.

We're an average team. I don't want Bill Cowher though so I feel stuck as a fan...

[DraftSavant]

Our defense is a joke.

We're an average team. I don't want Bill Cowher though so I feel stuck as a fan...

Spags is coming back.

[bigbluedefense]

Spags is coming back.

Don't tease me. For the love of GOD, don't tease me.

[dan77733]

We could potentially see a a 12-4 AFC North runner up playing at a .500 AFC West winner. No thanks. Barely winning your crappy division doesn't mean **** to me.

Okay but a team going 12-4 and NOT winning their division means **** to me so I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[BeerBaron]

Okay but a team going 12-4 and NOT winning their division means **** to me so I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Winning a division doesn't mean **** to me if it's a ****** division. Winning 12 games and losing a tiebreaker for your division lead is far more impressive than 8 or 9 wins under any circumstance.

Winning more games than someone else is what it's about. The league is about winning. Win games. Winning more than someone else should benefit you.

Someone getting to stay home in the playoffs because their division was terrible is garbage. It's ******* trash.

No team should ever have to go on the road in the playoffs to play a team with a worse record. That team won more games against the opponents the league put in front of them and then gets punished for it.

It's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. There is no justification for that and it's hypocritical for anyone who says "winning means everything!" to then turn around and think a bull **** barely .500 team who won their ******* trash division should get to host a playoff game. It's never right.

This isn't college where two teams could play their entire schedule without a common opponent and end up with the same record. This is the NFL where the league makes the schedules and all teams contain professional athletes.

Like so much else in the league based on faulty old "traditions," it defies common sense and should therefore be changed.

[Nalej]

I say keep it relatively the same except the team with the better record always gets home field advantage.

[DraftSavant]

Winning a division doesn't mean **** to me if it's a ****** division. Winning 12 games and losing a tiebreaker for your division lead is far more impressive than 8 or 9 wins under any circumstance.

Winning more games than someone else is what it's about. The league is about winning. Win games. Winning more than someone else should benefit you.

Someone getting to stay home in the playoffs because their division was terrible is garbage. It's ******* trash.

No team should ever have to go on the road in the playoffs to play a team with a worse record. That team won more games against the opponents the league put in front of them and then gets punished for it.

It's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. There is no justification for that and it's hypocritical for anyone who says "winning means everything!" to then turn around and think a bull **** barely .500 team who won their ******* trash division should get to host a playoff game. It's never right.

This isn't college where two teams could play their entire schedule without a common opponent and end up with the same record. This is the NFL where the league makes the schedules and all teams contain professional athletes.

Like so much else in the league based on faulty old "traditions," it defies common sense and should therefore be changed.

Meh, it works both ways. Under your scenario, you can get a team that earns a wildcard spot based solely on playing a weak schedule. Meanwhile, some other team that played a brutal schedule and still won their division would travel to the wildcard team's home turf for a playoff game just because of scheduling luck?

Taking it a step further, if winning your division doesn't mean anything and we base everything off of record, then what's the point of playing each divisional opponent twice? Or even having divisions instead of just conferences?

[Raiderz4Life]

Meh, it works both ways. Under your scenario, you can get a team that earns a wildcard spot based solely on playing a weak schedule. Meanwhile, some other team that played a brutal schedule and still won their division would travel to the wildcard team's home turf for a playoff game just because of scheduling luck?

Taking it a step further, if winning your division doesn't mean anything and we base everything off of record, then what's the point of playing each divisional opponent twice? Or even having divisions instead of just conferences?

Why not make it where winning your division with say...10 minimum wins guarantees you the home playoff game.

I agree with BB that having an 8-8 or 9-7 team in the playoffs because the rest of its division was a combined 4-50 or w.e. is crap.

[BeerBaron]

Meh, it works both ways. Under your scenario, you can get a team that earns a wildcard spot based solely on playing a weak schedule. Meanwhile, some other team that played a brutal schedule and still won their division would travel to the wildcard team's home turf for a playoff game just because of scheduling luck?

Taking it a step further, if winning your division doesn't mean anything and we base everything off of record, then what's the point of playing each divisional opponent twice? Or even having divisions instead of just conferences?

Like I said, the difference between a strong and weak schedule in the NFL is far lesser than it is in say, college football.

You're facing a team of professionals every week, and everyone plays everyone else once every 4 years at maximum.

And for extreme cases, where a 12-4 team could play at an 8-8 team, that can't just be the difficulty of the schedule. One or two games maybe, if say, one team played a "division basement" schedule while the other was a playoff team the year before. But 4 games? I don't think so. The one team is clearly better than the other in that case.

And now, I never said keep division winners out of the playoffs, which I think some people are taking this as. The NFL does that so every region has the same opportunity to send teams to the playoffs each year. But seed strictly based on record.

Winning your division guarantees you a playoff spot, fine, but it shouldn't guarantee you a home game vs. a better quality foe who won more games than you did.

It seems like this is happening more and more too. There's a very good chance that the Steelers or Ravens will have 12 wins and be playing AT an AFC West winner who won 9 or possibly even 8. And last year we saw a losing team host a playoff game. Don't even get me started there. Try and tell me that wasn't a HUGE advantage for Seattle. I think if they played the Saints 10 times, New Orleans would have won 9 of them.

It's why anything can happen in the NFL, but that doesn't mean we should be penalizing teams who win more games.

[dan77733]

What happens if a team that wins their division despite injuries like the Texans this year but yet let's say they finish with a worse record than whoever finishes second between PIT/BAL. HOU should have to travel to PIT/BAL just because the SECOND best team in the AFC North had a better record the BEST team in the AFC South??? Seriously, how is that fair? Simple answer, it isnt at least not to the Texans.

Also....where's the incentive in regards to winning your division and getting a home playoff game? Not only that but winning your division means that you were better than the other teams in your division. If the second place team in the AFC North (PIT/BAL) was to host the Texans instead of the other way around, thats basically saying that while PIT/BAL had a better record, they were only better than two other teams in their division while HOU was better than three other teams in their division and thus, won it? How is that fair to the Texans?

You're also not taking into account injuries and the fact that for example when the Colts won the AFC South every year, is it really their fault that the rest of the division sucked?

Another thing is that if a team with a better record is supposed to be better like last year's Saints team, quite honestly, if they cant beat an inferior team JUST BECAUSE its in that inferior team's stadium than quite honestly, they dont deserve a damn thing, especially a home playoff game. Saints didnt lose because they played in SEA, they lost because they couldnt stop Lynch and Hasselbeck. Dont blame where the game was played. Blame the Saints from top to bottom for playing like crap in that game.

Ravens for example have lost to inferior teams this year and just because they're 10-4, they should host a playoff game against the AFC West winner??? Sorry but hell no. They cant beat inferior teams just because those games were on the road and yet, they should be rewarded with a home playoff game???

Sorry but the only way your idea would work is if there were only two divisions in each conference. Since thats not the case and probably not going to happen anytime soon, let the so called better record teams earn their wins on the road. If they cant, well, then they dont deserve to host a God damn thing period.

And one last note, look at the Packers last year. A wildcard team on the road that had a better record than SEA but yet won it all. So, if they can do it, dont say other teams like PIT/BAL/etc. cant. They can do it to but if they dont, the last excuse should be "oh, its because we didnt play at home despite having a better regular season record than our opponent".

[Rosebud]

While I do agree you in general BB, team schedules do differ immensely. I mean lets say a WC team has two **** teams in their division and their division is matched up with the AFC and NFC West divisions. Now that team has a massively easier road to get a lot of wins than a team from a division where there's 3 Playoff Contenders that matches up with the AFC and NFC North divisions. In that scenario are you still going to argue that the 12-4 or better WC team will have had a more impressive season than the 10-6 division winner? Even though the Division champ had not only their brutal division to contend with but also faced drastically tougher competition in their out of division matchups?

[A Perfect Score]

Being stuck with Blaine Gabbert.

I vote being stuck with Cam Cameron.

"Ok guys, we're down 10-7 at half. Ray Rice is averaging 6 YPC, so we're going to give him about 4 carries in the second half. Meanwhile, I'm going to advertise my incredibly ****** offensive playbook in hopes of getting another head coaching gig so I can TE screen my way to ANOTHER 1-15 RECORD! MUAHAHAHAH MUAHAHAHAHAHA MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

That's how I picture Cam Cameron talking to our offense at halftime. There is no way it doesn't end in an evil, maniacal laugh. The worst part is the Ravens are the 1 in 1-15.