BeerBaron's Divisional Round Thoughts

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

Giants don't have a great TE.

You have plenty of WRs, you stop it!

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

I don't think I said that at any point. Now, will Ballard have a Heath Miller-esque key catch or two every game that extends a drive? Absolutely.

I was responding to YAY, not you. He said every successful team had a great TE so I was just saying that we didn't. Ballard's been very solid though.

[Giantsfan1080]

Originally Posted by Brent

You have plenty of WRs, you stop it!

I'm not complaining. A great TE would be a waste in our offense anyway so I'm perfectly happy with what we have. I'd like a TE like Fleener for help in the red zone though.

[wogitalia]

Great write up...

The TE thing is easy, they are the single biggest benefactors of all the rule changes. You can't touch them down field(which basically takes away how LBs are taught to cover a TE from the first game they play) and then you can't hit them after they catch it. TE's have always been able to find space in the middle but it would have taken a sadistic mofo at QB to actually throw them the passes that a guy like Davis was catching all day, now you basically freeze the secondary when you throw across the middle. They know if they hit a receiver too hard it will be flag regardless of if you hit them high, they know if they hit them high it will be a flag regardless of how hard you hit them, they know if they play the ball and miss it's a TD, they know if they touch you a half second early its a flag. So they end up basically stopping and waiting and then try and tackle without any kind of momentum with which to do it.

TE's benefit even more because they are in that area of the field that has the most doubt(over the middle) more and because they are bigger and stronger which makes the only real option that has been left that much harder. I'd dare say that half the yards Davis got were after contact on the weekend and they were all from a defender waiting for him to catch it and then trying not to give away a penalty.

I love watching a great TE dominate, I hate the way the rule changes make me feel like the TEs right now are as much a symptom of those changes as any inherent greatness they have.

I love that defenses are dominating.

I have my own point as well... resting players. When are teams going to stop doing it, it's an awful tactic. You lose all of the momentum that got you to a position to rest. You tell the entire team which guys you think are better and more important than the team as a whole, you tell the team that winning isn't that important. It's a pathetic losers mentality and it flat out doesn't work.

Green Bay this year were the only team to rest players, they came out looking complacent, lazy and rusty. Both the Falcons and Pats rested their starters last year, though at least they both played for a part of the game. I remember the Colts resting players the year before and never getting any rhythm throughout the playoffs.

It's just an awful idea, imo, that has far more negatives than positives. The Giants and Packers have shown in consecutive years that staying battle tested and having momentum and continuity entering the playoffs is huge. Pretty sure you can look at the Cards as another example of that and that is just in the last few years.

[BradysKnee]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

Think about what I said. Tebow has a slow release and struggles with accuracy. Neither of those statements is untrue.

Nope I agree with you on everything you've said about Tebow.

[Bucs147]

Originally Posted by wogitalia

Green Bay this year were the only team to rest players, they came out looking complacent, lazy and rusty. Both the Falcons and Pats rested their starters last year, though at least they both played for a part of the game. I remember the Colts resting players the year before and never getting any rhythm throughout the playoffs.

They got to the Super Bowl that year and were a pick 6 and an onside kick away from winning it. They lost to the New Orleans Saints, who also rest must of their starters at the end of that season. In fact, after going 13-0, the Saints lost their last 3 games... and they had zero problem in the playoffs.

I don't think there's a true answer to the whole "Rest or Play your starters" situation. It just depends on each situation.

[Borat]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

1.) Saints/49ers

And I think this only further solidifies John Harbaugh as the Coach of the Year. Much of this team's talent was already in place the last several seasons, but he has absolutely brought it out this year.

Hehehe. Ooops.

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by Borat

Hehehe. Ooops.

Ehhhhh, bound to happen.

[LonghornsLegend]

Originally Posted by wogitalia

I have my own point as well... resting players. When are teams going to stop doing it, it's an awful tactic. You lose all of the momentum that got you to a position to rest. You tell the entire team which guys you think are better and more important than the team as a whole, you tell the team that winning isn't that important. It's a pathetic losers mentality and it flat out doesn't work.

Green Bay this year were the only team to rest players, they came out looking complacent, lazy and rusty. Both the Falcons and Pats rested their starters last year, though at least they both played for a part of the game. I remember the Colts resting players the year before and never getting any rhythm throughout the playoffs.

It's just an awful idea, imo, that has far more negatives than positives. The Giants and Packers have shown in consecutive years that staying battle tested and having momentum and continuity entering the playoffs is huge. Pretty sure you can look at the Cards as another example of that and that is just in the last few years.

Really? Sorry but I'd rather be rusty, then like the Pats the year that Welker destroyed his knee in a meaningless game. I'm pretty sure that losing an impact player to a significant injury is a far greater negative then being rusty. No way you can argue that.

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

Really? Sorry but I'd rather be rusty, then like the Pats the year that Welker destroyed his knee in a meaningless game. I'm pretty sure that losing an impact player to a significant injury is a far greater negative then being rusty. No way you can argue that.

It's starting to look debatable. For example, 4 of the last 5 #1 seeds in the NFC have lost in the divisional round. Locking up the #1 seed early has hurt more teams than it has helped in recent years.

It's just one of those things where there's no good "always do ________" answer.

As a coach, you just have to make sure your team is prepared coming out of the bye week. The Packers looked extremely sluggish and never got into a rhythm.

[Basileus777]

There isn't even any evidence that the Packers loss has anything to do with their extended rest. They played the Giants exactly the same way the did against KC. Most of the problems they had (poor defense, drops) were issues before the playoffs started. The Packers peaked earlier in the season and these things became problems before they rested their starters.

[Bucs_Rule]

I don't see how taking an extra week off would affect your ability to catch the ball.

[Basileus777]

Every year you get some bye team laying an egg, and the rust argument is convenient because there is no way to prove or disprove whether or not it really was the cause.

[BeerBaron]

It's a trend though. There's something to it. I'm not saying I know what it is, but it's beyond happenstance or coincidence to have 4 of 5 #1 seeds lose like that.

[Borat]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

It's a trend though. There's something to it. I'm not saying I know what it is, but it's beyond happenstance or coincidence to have 4 of 5 #1 seeds lose like that.

I'm not arguing, just wondering how the #2 seeds have fared.

[Ness]

Green Bay just had a bad day. But it did look like The Packers hadn't practiced at all. But apparently they did have a good week of practice. That being said, when was the last time Rodgers and Jennings played in a game together? Wasn't it like week 15 or something? Over a month ago.

[Basileus777]

Jennings hadn't played since week 14, so that's over a month. Maybe he chose a bad time to get injured.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

He'd probably just overthrow him...or worse.

Throwing to the TE usually means throwing into traffic, and with Tebow's release and accuracy, that would get eaten alive by defenses.

yup. it's like... think of every *good* pass (i know, all 8 of them) that tebow threw this year. now, what did they have in common?

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by njx9

yup. it's like... think of every *good* pass (i know, all 8 of them) that tebow threw this year. now, what did they have in common?

The receiver got open behind the defense and Tebow managed to hit him?

[njx9]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

The receiver got open behind the defense and Tebow managed to hit him?

i wouldn't say open, but they were all deep passes where his horrific release didn't matter, with regards to defenders. i'd guess he just got hot in terms of accuracy.

but it's like you said, on short passes people had time to react. defenders could get in the way, move into throwing lanes and do myriad other things that would affect his ability to properly deliver the ball.

and none of that gets into some of the worst footwork i've ever seen in the nfl.

[Brent]

I really hope John Elway is like, "**** Tim Tebow" and takes a guy like Tannehill in the first.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by Borat

I'm not arguing, just wondering how the #2 seeds have fared.

Now this isn't always true, but #2 seeds usually have more a battle for that final bye spot than the #1 seed and so have had less opportunities to rest their starters the way a run away #1 seed does.

[wogitalia]

I'm not arguing, just wondering how the #2 seeds have fared.

2011
1st seeds - Atlanta and New England both lost
2nd seeds - Pittsburgh and Chicago both won

2010
1st seeds - New Orleans and Indy both won
2nd seeds - Minny won, SD lost.

2009
1st seeds - Tenn and NYG both lost
2nd seeds - Pitts won, Carolina lost

2008
1st seeds - NE won, Dallas lost
2nd seeds - GB won, Indy lost

2008 may be the best example, Colts rested players, Pats went for the unbeaten season just to upset the apple cart on the traditional seeds of resting players.

Basically that doesn't say a lot though because it doesn't factor who rested and who didn't. Still the regularity with which the top teams are losing at home is noteworthy to me. Especially given that most years they rest players heading in.

[Bucs147]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

It's a trend though. There's something to it. I'm not saying I know what it is, but it's beyond happenstance or coincidence to have 4 of 5 #1 seeds lose like that.

Well, look at each of these 5 games:

2011
It's all about match-ups. The Giants matches up perfectly versus the Packers. To beat GB's O, you need a great pass rush, the Giants have that. They also have pretty good DBs that can covers GB WRs. Their poor LB core and rushing D didn't really matter versus that offense. They had the passing offense to exploit Packers' crappy DBs. All about the match-ups.

2010
Let's be honest, the Falcons were a poor #1 seed here. Sure they had a 13-3 record, but they had tons of breaks that work in their favor during the season. They were a playoff caliber team, but not a #1 seed. On the other sidde, the Packers had injuriezzzz throughout the season, which gave them additionnal losses that they shouldn't have. The better team won the game here, there's nothing to see.

2009
The Saints detroyed the Cards. Nothing to add.

2008
The Eagles know how to play the Giants in the Giants stadium. They already beat them in that same field before during the season. And for that last few years, NYG always had great starts to the season, but poor endings. The same thing happened in 2008. They were already having problems during the end of the regular season.

2007
Duh, it's the Cowboys. They always find a way to completly choke their season away.

[BeerBaron]

Justify it however you want, but something happening 4 out of 5 times is a pretty big trend. Like I said, I don't have an explanation for it, but something is happening to cause it.

The #1 seed in the NFC would need to win each of the next 3 years just to bring their record in divisional round games to .500 over the past 8 years.

There's something at play here.

And even the AFC isn't fairing all that much better. A #1 seed playing at home should probably be better than 3-2, and one of those wins was by a nigh unstoppable undefeated Patriots.