Got any action on "smokey left" (or right)?
In the AFC-CG, Peyton actually used "Bags Montana Fatman" several times. Who knows what it was supposed to mean, but it was hilarious.
NFL Discussion - 2013 Season
- Thread starter tomalak301
- Start date
- Status
In the AFC-CG, Peyton actually used "Bags Montana Fatman" several times. Who knows what it was supposed to mean, but it was hilarious.
Wish Chatty Cathy would just shut up and play, but that's me, I guess. Comparing tape to what he says (and in interviews with other players) 90% of what he says is complete nonsense anyway. And nothing until about 10 seconds before snap, for sure.
Fully agree he's going to change coverages based on what he sees, call out the Mike linebacker (pretty common), even a couple fake snap counts occasionally to try and draw offsides, but does he really need a 40-second stream of consciousness verbal diarrhea on EVERY snap? Just STFU and snap the ball occasionally. Since he's gotta run a certain percentages of the plays that were actually called in, would be nice if on at least ONE play, he called it in the huddle, just walked up and snapped it without saying anything.
Guy just loves the sound of his own voice, and maybe helps his legend about the brilliant QB if people think he's got all this stuff going on all the time...
Fully agree he's going to change coverages based on what he sees, call out the Mike linebacker (pretty common), even a couple fake snap counts occasionally to try and draw offsides, but does he really need a 40-second stream of consciousness verbal diarrhea on EVERY snap? Just STFU and snap the ball occasionally. Since he's gotta run a certain percentages of the plays that were actually called in, would be nice if on at least ONE play, he called it in the huddle, just walked up and snapped it without saying anything.
Guy just loves the sound of his own voice, and maybe helps his legend about the brilliant QB if people think he's got all this stuff going on all the time...
I also found it annoying when he did this when he was with the Colts. It was like he wanted there to be no doubt as to who was in control of the offense. But for reasons unknown, it hasn't bothered me as much since he's been with Denver.Wish Chatty Cathy would just shut up and play, but that's me, I guess. Comparing tape to what he says (and in interviews with other players) 90% of what he says is complete nonsense anyway. And nothing until about 10 seconds before snap, for sure.
Fully agree he's going to change coverages based on what he sees, call out the Mike linebacker (pretty common), even a couple fake snap counts occasionally to try and draw offsides, but does he really need a 40-second stream of consciousness verbal diarrhea on EVERY snap? Just STFU and snap the ball occasionally. Since he's gotta run a certain percentages of the plays that were actually called in, would be nice if on at least ONE play, he called it in the huddle, just walked up and snapped it without saying anything.
But the evolution of signal calling in the NFL has been fascinating. In the old days guys would get up there, call out their fake numbers, utter a few "huts" and go. Nowadays, with many quarterbacks, it sounds like they are having a conversation with someone at the line of scrimmage and then the ball is suddenly snapped.
BTW, I hear you re: the "Mike" call. But I don't think any of the teams use "Mike" anymore for the middle backer. In fact, I suspect that Peyton's "Smokey" is Denver's name for "Mike".
Sure they do. Know for a fact Patriots do, as you hear Brady call out "54 (or whatever) is the Mike" before most of the snaps. Just adjusts towards whichever side they're blocking to, sets the assignments.
Obviously watched fewer Denver games, but fairly positive that somewhere in Peyton's rambling diatribes that he's been calling out the Mike LB as well...
I read a remarkable statistic the other day. In Russell Wilson's two years in the NFL, Seattle hasn't lost a single game by more than 7 points. Meanwhile, the last time Peyton Manning and the Broncos lost by more than 7 was a 10 point loss to New England in Week 5 of the 2012 season. If either team loses by more than a touchdown tomorrow, it'll be a rare event.
Today's the day!!! I'm making chili and cornbread for dinner and I have chips and salsa con queso! I also have my favorite root beer.
Not really as remarkable as you think. More 'small sample size' than anything else. If you go, on average, 13-3 or 12-4 every year, how many opportunities do you HAVE to lose by more than 7? Lose a couple close games, and you can drag that stat back quite a ways.
Did a 2-second search of the Patriots scores, just as a reference point for another winning team. Last time they lost by more than 7 in the regular season was October of 2011, lost by 8. November of 2010 was the last legit beatdown, lost by 20 to the Browns.
There WERE the AFC title game in 2012 and 2013, (28-13 and 26-16), but the point is that it's rare right until it's not. And with small sample size, you can draw lots of bad conclusions. And in your final game of the year, someone's gonna lose, so guarantees another shot for someone to lose by more than 7.
Hell, the stats show that each team wins about 85% of their games every year, including playoffs. Regardless, someone's gonna lose
Rooting for the Broncos because of Manning the Greater (and I'm so sick of Giants fans saying Manning the Lesser is a better quarterback because KISS THE RINGS), but their defense is really banged up -- if San Diego had started running on them earlier than the fourth quarter, the divisional round game would have been very interesting. So I honestly think the Seahawks will take it ... which will make everyone in my company's Seattle office even more insufferable than they already have been over the past few weeks.
I expect the Broncos to win with a score similar to their two playoff games (24-17 and 26-16).
Seattle's defense will absolutely slow down Denver's offense- no way they'll be scoring 40 or 50 points. But Denver has too many legitimate targets to be stopped completely and they'll put some points up. On the flip side, Seattle's offense flows through Lynch. Denver's defense has a low ranking, but that is largely due to poor performances against the pass. With one or two single-game exceptions, the Broncos have been exceptional against the run all year. And as a whole unit, they've played much better over the last 4 or 5 games (especially if you take out the the 4th quarter vs SD where Jammer was inflicted on the world and the 4th quarter vs NE where the "prevent" defense was inflicted on the world).
Seattle's defense will absolutely slow down Denver's offense- no way they'll be scoring 40 or 50 points. But Denver has too many legitimate targets to be stopped completely and they'll put some points up. On the flip side, Seattle's offense flows through Lynch. Denver's defense has a low ranking, but that is largely due to poor performances against the pass. With one or two single-game exceptions, the Broncos have been exceptional against the run all year. And as a whole unit, they've played much better over the last 4 or 5 games (especially if you take out the the 4th quarter vs SD where Jammer was inflicted on the world and the 4th quarter vs NE where the "prevent" defense was inflicted on the world).
Do you use creamed corn in your cornbread?
27 - 24, Broncos win.
Good lord, the Richard Sherman redemption campaign is still in full force...
He didn't fucking rape a puppy on live tv, he just gave an emotional interview. There's nothing for him to redeem himself from.
Although he certainly put the stakes high for himself not to look like an idiot tonight...
- Status
Similar threads
