2011 NFL Season - A New Game

[1001001]

And running up the score is bullshit. You want the Pats to score less...STOP THEM. It's the NFL, not pewee football.

We're definitely on the same page here. There's no such thing as running up the score. It's no more a sign of "poor sportsmanship" to me than an elaborate end zone celebration (which, IMO, is actually good for the game). There is, however such a thing as poor defense. I've seen games where one team scores a lot and then, just to be nice, quits throwing the ball. They then continue to score because the other team can't tackle anyone running with the ball. What is the superior team supposed to do then? Punt on 1st down?

I think the only time the "running up the score" criticism is fair is when teams do things like go for a 2 point conversion when they're up by 30 (I'm looking at you, Jim Harbaugh!), or try an onside kick with a big lead. Stuff like that.

Otherwise, what are teams supposed to do? Fall down every play?

There's a difference between playing hard, and poor sportsmanship. I think the latter happens pretty rarely.

 

[archeryguy1701]

^My thought on running the score up is that I would think that having the score run up would be less humiliating than having the opposing offense quit playing or put all scrubs in the game. If I was facing a team that did that, it would tell me, "We don't respect you enough to play a full 60 minutes. You're not in our league, and we're going to put backups in because there is no way you'll ever mount a comeback. You suck."

Hell, in both of the Pats games against the Broncos, I commented that the "smart" thing for Belichick to do is keep the foot on the gas and eliminate any possibility of a late rally. Make sure the game gets out of hand and keep it there.

 

[Scout101]

What are you supposed to do? Kneel on it 3 times and punt? No, you mostly just run it to keep the clock going. If the opposing team can't even stop the run once they know it's coming, what else do you do? half-ass the run, and hope you don't get a first down?

This isn't high school, man up.

That's bad for the 'good' team too, because they don't get 60 minutes of work in. Get out of game shape, and run into trouble when they face a team that doesn't suck.

 

[Aragorn]

I know this Notre Dame football douche who is all "you have to let the players play the game" when Notre Dame wins in a blowout, but when they get blown out he's all "that classless unsportsmanlike coach ran up the score."

 

[Thestral]

Peyton going down proves that the Patriots system of interchangeable parts and value works better then the Colts system of building their entire offensive scheme around one player, because when he goes down, it shows how badly the rest of the team is built. All it proves is that the Patriots, overall, have been a been a better constructed team from top to bottom.

I think it tells us more about which organization/front office is more competent than it does which quarterback is better. The Patriots were able to put together a winning season without Brady because they were better prepared than the Colts were. And it's not like the Patriots were still dominant without Brady; they went from a 16-0 season where they reached the Super Bowl to an 11-5 season where they missed the playoffs. That's a pretty significant dropoff, IMO. But it wasn't as bad as it could have been because the Patriots didn't put all of their eggs in one basket like the Colts did.

Ok, yeah, I think you guys are right here. The Polians got exposed this year and bad. I thought you were saying the Colts implosion tells us Brady's better than Peyton, and my point was that if it tells us anything about that question, it's that Peyton's better. My bad.

The Colts sucking this year was only partially on the lack of Peyton Manning, but it was also due to their inability to execute most, if not all aspects of the game. I'm not sure even his greatness could have gotten them over a .500 record. They were that bad.

Im sorry, but right now the Manning/Brady argument is pretty much neck and neck, but it Brady wins another Superbowl, it's pretty much over. The numbers are close enough that you can't overlook 3 (possibly 4) Superbowl wins, to 1.

I don't know about that. It was essentially the same Colts team as last year that went 10-6 and lost to the Jets in the Wild Card (who went on to beat the Pats by a greater margin you remember ). As to the Superbowl thing, I dunno... Marino vs. Bradshaw?

 

[Sheep]

I'm sure Jim Caldwell is a nice guy, but as a coach, he's no Bill Belichick.

Having a "nice guy" coach in Chicago for most of the last decade, I'd trade him any day of the week for a douchebag who lights a fire under his players asses and gets results by winning. The NFL isn't a campfire with people around it singing kumbaya.

 

[Yoda]

Well, College Football is a little different. There you have to dump your inflated blowout stats into a computer and beg its approval. But Notre Dame douche should realize that when they're getting blown out (which is way too often these days by historical Notre Dame standards), it's not personal... or at least not unsporting.

And yeah, Belichick does run it up a bit. I don't think it's excessive. Heck, he could have had Brady obliterate records in the Broncos game but quite obviously held back... did just enough to prove they could easily do it. In general it's put it out of reach, and keep it out of reach with the Patriots. I think they could probably go into clock-killing mode a little sooner... but then again, most teams go into clock-killing mode way early. I'd take 'running it up' over what most teams try to do to close out a game any day.

Also, when you contrast it with Sean Payton/Drew Brees painfully blatant record chasing, it doesn't look so bad.

Oh, and yeah, sorry, Peyton Manning is the better QB of their 'generation' no matter how many Super Bowls Brady wins. It's a team sport, I don't see how you can watch their individual play and come to the conclusion that Brady is better.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Something I think folks tend to forget about is the fact that points scored/ allowed are used as tie-breakers for playoff positions. While the tie-breaker scenarios usually don't need to drill down that deep, there is a logical explaination for not leaving any points on the field.

 

[Tom Servo]

Well, College Football is a little different. There you have to dump your inflated blowout stats into a computer and beg its approval. But Notre Dame douche should realize that when they're getting blown out (which is way too often these days by historical Notre Dame standards), it's not personal... or at least not unsporting.

And yeah, Belichick does run it up a bit. I don't think it's excessive. Heck, he could have had Brady obliterate records in the Broncos game but quite obviously held back... did just enough to prove they could easily do it. In general it's put it out of reach, and keep it out of reach with the Patriots. I think they could probably go into clock-killing mode a little sooner... but then again, most teams go into clock-killing mode way early. I'd take 'running it up' over what most teams try to do to close out a game any day.

Also, when you contrast it with Sean Payton/Drew Brees painfully blatant record chasing, it doesn't look so bad.

Oh, and yeah, sorry, Peyton Manning is the better QB of their 'generation' no matter how many Super Bowls Brady wins. It's a team sport, I don't see how you can watch their individual play and come to the conclusion that Brady is better.

I watch both their individual play and come to they conclusion that they at least equals, hence my factoring of the Superbowls. When players are that close in numbers, what else is there to go on?

 

[tighr]

I'd hate to see Peyton go (I'd have to buy new jerseys...) but if the Colts do cut Peyton this season, It would certainly be interesting to see him get picked up by a team like the Jets. Not only would the Jets play the Patriots twice, but they would play many of the same common opponents as well. It would certainly be interesting.

It'd also be nice to see Peyton on a team that didn't have a bunch of rejects on it.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I'm sure Jim Caldwell is a nice guy, but as a coach, he's no Bill Belichick.

Having a "nice guy" coach in Chicago for most of the last decade, I'd trade him any day of the week for a douchebag who lights a fire under his players asses and gets results by winning. The NFL isn't a campfire with people around it singing kumbaya.

Like Ditka, before he went over the edge.

 

[Neroon]

Yeah, but the Giants aren't the plucky underdogs this time around.

Personally, I think the Giants are better than they were last time. Then again, NE is getting their defense healthy again, probably the most all season long, and we saw how they bailed the offense out against the Ravens.

 

[Scout101]

Eli's better, the defense isn't quite as good, IMO. Not a big dropoff, though.

New England isn't the high-flying offense from 2007, but the current version is more dangerous, as there's a ton of options to go to, instead of just taking away Moss deep and Welker underneath. The defense isn't as good, although maybe close. NE defense in 2007 LOOKED better, but that's a combination of 'name' players that had lost a step (so you remember Bruschi being good, despite him not being the guy he was in 2004. And because of the offense, it forced the opponent to abandon the run and try to win a shootout, which didn't play to many strengths, making them look better than they were. In the 2011 version, they're just younger and in a few places, not as talented. It's mix and match, but they've definitely stepped up their game in the playoffs, and are looking better right now.

Should be a pretty decent matchup.

 

[Skywalker]

The Patriots' defense almost won it for them back in 2007. If only Asante Samuel had held on to that ball...

But yeah, while this year's defense had a pretty poor regular season, they've gotten healthier and have been playing very hard in the last few weeks. I'm hoping they can keep it up against the Giants' offense, which IMO is better than the one they had back in 2007.

 

[Sheep]

I'd hate to see Peyton go (I'd have to buy new jerseys...) but if the Colts do cut Peyton this season, It would certainly be interesting to see him get picked up by a team like the Jets. Not only would the Jets play the Patriots twice, but they would play many of the same common opponents as well. It would certainly be interesting.

It'd also be nice to see Peyton on a team that didn't have a bunch of rejects on it.

I suspect if he's leaving the Colts, he's going to a contender that doesn't need years of rebuilding, and just needs a good QB to get over the hump. Peyton on the Jets would be the NFL's wet dream--bigtime QB in a large media market, playing in the same city and stadium as his brother.

I don't see many scenarios in which the Colts draft Luck and keep Peyton...that's more than $50 million in salary for two players, only one of which would be playing at any given time.

 

[Thestral]

Peyton to the Broncos. Let the Peyton fans and the Tebow fans duke it out.

 

[poundpuppy29]

I think the Pats are going to win just a feeling I have

 

[archeryguy1701]

Peyton to the Broncos. Let the Peyton fans and the Tebow fans duke it out.

Ya know.... I wouldn't have a problem with that. Besides the fact that Manning is a pretty damn good player, he would likely want to continue running the offense and making his own calls, which might make our offense a bit more interesting than the "Run 23 out fo 24 First Downs" offense that we have with McCoy.

 

[Timby]

I'm sure Jim Caldwell is a nice guy, but as a coach, he's no Bill Belichick.

Having a "nice guy" coach in Chicago for most of the last decade, I'd trade him any day of the week for a douchebag who lights a fire under his players asses and gets results by winning. The NFL isn't a campfire with people around it singing kumbaya.

Lovie's biggest flaw is his undying loyalty to his assistants. Outside of that, he's probably one of the best coaches in the Bears' history. He got them to the Super Bowl with Rex Grossman, for Christ's sake.

In other news, Roger Goodell has had his contract extended through 2018. I look forward to 5 more years of Roger Goodell. I was just thinking that the players were getting too uppity and should wear suits and ties to games (and did you know some of them wore different-colored cleats?)

 

[SmoothieX]

I just had this feeling it would be 24-20 Giants, and then saw that was the actual score of their regular season matchup. And I'm a Pats fan, so I have a dog in this fight.

The offense is more multi-faceted than in 2007. They were a big play threat then. Now they can mix it up more. Welker is still a 1st down machine, but now they have Branch who is explosive at times, Gronk the beast, and Hernandez who is a slippery and can play multiple positions, the Law Firm who isn't flashy but doesn't fumble, Woodhead as a change of pace and pass catching RB out of the backfield, and a solid O-line.

The D worries me. They roll over on 3rd down, but somehow manage to come up with a big sack/INT/strip when it matters. You can't rely on that luck though. It's a bend, sometimes bend over, but don't break D.

The Giants offense can cause all sorts of trouble with Manningham, Cruz, and Steamie Nicks, but their run game has faltered. Their D-line is still solid.

I think it boils down to the last time they played in the SB. If Brady has time and can direct the offense, Pats win. If the Giants pressure him, they're screwed.