NFL Week 16

[MovieMogul]

I really don't have anything to say except: Whoop! :);):) GO :);):) CHARGERS!!! :);):)

[hajario]

Can't argue with that. An SD win or a NE loss this week gives the Bolts a first round bye in the playoffs.

[Ellis Dee]

Stupid NY teams and their mid-season swoons. As a Giants and Jets fan, I am officially rooting hard for:

Giants over Panthers
Redskins over Cowboys
Seahawks over Packers

Jets over Colts
Patriots over Jaguars
Eagles over Broncos (barf)
Steelers over Ravens
Texans over Dolphins

Looks like I have a vested rooting interest in 8 of 16 games. Luckily, the odds of 8 games going your way isn't astronomically small. Well, it is if you compare it against something common like spontaneously being teleported to a moon of Jupiter, but you know what I mean.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Go bengals, stop committing drive killing penalties and make the damn playoffs already!!!

[Stringer]

I can't say I'm rooting against the Bears. But I wouldn't mind the Vikings handing us an embarrassing loss on Monday night if that means Angelo/Lovie are fired sooner.

[ReuvenB]

Last Sunday? Those were the Bengals I knew and loved. I don't know who these new guys are, but I really hope they make the playoffs anyway.

[TheBoltEater]

I really don't have anything to say except: Whoop! :);):) GO :);):) CHARGERS!!! :);):)

Yep, that about sums it up. :)

[Jules Andre]

Eagles over Broncos (barf)
Ho HO! Never thought I'd see the day. Plenty of room on the bandwagon if you want to hop aboard. I imagine it's tempting this time of year! :D

On the serious side, does an Eagles win really help you at all? Especially against an AFC opponent? I can't imagine it would.

[Bearflag70]

On the serious side, does an Eagles win really help you at all? Especially against an AFC opponent? I can't imagine it would.

It helps keep Dallas out, so maybe that's the thought.

[dalej42]

The Cardinals have an easy game against the Rams. So, let's actually make it an easy game. Get Warner and Fitz out of the game early. The Rams are probably going to start a 3rd string quarterback. Let's take our win and get ready for the playoffs.

[Roland Orzabal]

Hard to have a discussion when the OP has already made every salient point on the issue.

I can't even throw in a cheer for whoever's playing Dallas, because even though Washington is one spot below the 'Boys at #2 on my list of hated teams, I just can't say the words "go Redskins" with any conviction. Looks like I've got no other choice but to resort to that much-maligned old standby...

Whoop! :);):) GO :);):) CHARGERS!!! :);):)
This.

[pricciar]

On the serious side, does an Eagles win really help you at all? Especially against an AFC opponent? I can't imagine it would.

I think it is because it helps keep the Jets playoff hopes alive.

Wow that AFC wild card race is crazy. 6 teams at 7-7 still alive and hoping the Pennsylvania teams win to bring those 8-6 teams down.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Last Sunday? Those were the Bengals I knew and loved. I don't know who these new guys are, but I really hope they make the playoffs anyway.

The only problem is, they've won enough games overall to give you that "gee, I wonder which team will show up on offense?" vibe. Their defense is fairly stout. The offense is a work in progress.

Merry Christmas, NFL lovers.

[Omniscient]

I can't say I'm rooting against the Bears. But I wouldn't mind the Vikings handing us an embarrassing loss on Monday night if that means Angelo/Lovie are fired sooner.

Yup.

I'm very conflicted this week. I hate Favre and want him to implode in grand fashion on MNF against the Bears and I always want the Bears to win divisional games, but I can't stomach the thought that a strong finish could save either Lovie or Angelo's jobs.

I wants me some Heimerdinger!

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Crossposted from my thread:

I typically don't jinx the Steelers by talking about stuff like this, but they have done me wrong so many times this year that I don't feel bad in bringing it up.

The Steelers playoff scenario comes down to this (all have to happen this week):

They win at Baltimore

The Jets lose to the Colts
The Titans lose to the Dolphins
The Jaguars lose to the Patriots
The Broncos lose to the Eagles

If that happens, believe it or not, the Steelers are win-and-in going into the last week against the Dolphins.

Here's the good news, though: all four of the teams that must lose are underdogs.

I think the Steelers have a hell of a chance. There are other scenarios, but all of them depend entirely upon Pittsburgh winning out.

[SenorBeef]

The Titans are playing the Chargers, not the Dolphins. I would suspect you just mixed up the teams, but considering the Dolphins are also in the wild card race as far as I know, that may be significant.

[SenorBeef]

Random NFL-related question. Am I the only one who thinks Vince Young's throws somehow look different than any other QB out there? It's hard to describe exactly what's going on - I don't think it's pure velocity because other QBs throw it pretty hard. But something just seems different when he lets go of the football, like he's playing under different gravity than everyone else or he's throwing a different ball. I can't quite describe it.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

His mechanics are different. His release is much lower than that of quarterbacks that are taught the traditional manner. It makes it look like the ball is rising for a lot longer, like he's floating it.

[Hawkeyeop]

Go Titans!

I'm curious the scenario that would allow them to make the playoffs. I think they lose every tiebreaker outside of Miami and maybe Houston.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Random NFL-related question. Am I the only one who thinks Vince Young's throws somehow look different than any other QB out there? It's hard to describe exactly what's going on - I don't think it's pure velocity because other QBs throw it pretty hard. But something just seems different when he lets go of the football, like he's playing under different gravity than everyone else or he's throwing a different ball. I can't quite describe it.

If memory serves me right, he's 6'5". When he makes his throwing motion, it's like he dips down, making himself effectively much shorter. I think what you're seeing, and what I've noticed as well watching some of him throwing recently, is the long, hard work of people trying to break him of that habit.

His throwing motion is the anti-Drew Brees. Where he gets up on his tiptoes for a lot of his throws, Young brings himself down.


Go Bucs! Come on, Lions. You can get this right. This is where you keep on losing.

[DSYoungEsq]

Can't say I care who manages to win out of the carnage that is the wild card race in the AFC, so long as the Bengals finally do the job and capture the North crown. Personally, I hope the Steelers and the Ravens tie, just to really muck up the works. :D

As for the NFC, it's time for the Packers to put an end to the stupidity and start the drive into the playoffs. Wins over Seattle and Arizona should do that quite well. Then it's work like hell to go as far as we can, and pray for the usual Favre implosion that takes his team with him. Which might not happen this year, dammit. :mad:

[DSYoungEsq]

If memory serves me right, he's 6'5". When he makes his throwing motion, it's like he dips down, making himself effectively much shorter. I think what you're seeing, and what I've noticed as well watching some of him throwing recently, is the long, hard work of people trying to break him of that habit.

His throwing motion is the anti-Drew Brees. Where he gets up on his tiptoes for a lot of his throws, Young brings himself down.


Go Bucs! Come on, Lions. You can get this right. This is where you keep on losing.

Aren't the Lambs pretty much guaranteed the #1 spot?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Aren't the Lambs pretty much guaranteed the #1 spot?

The Lions and Buccaneers have the same record and haven't played. I imagine that the Bucs hold the tie-breaker.

Either way, I want there to be no question. The Lions can lose and the Bucs can win and the Lions can win the Suh-weepstakes (thank you, SDMB).

[hajario]

The Titans sure are sloppy. So many stupid penalties plus a fumble and an INT.

[DSYoungEsq]

The Lions and Buccaneers have the same record and haven't played. I imagine that the Bucs hold the tie-breaker.

Either way, I want there to be no question. The Lions can lose and the Bucs can win and the Lions can win the Suh-weepstakes (thank you, SDMB).

Um, the Lambs are the Rams. Who have only won once, right? :dubious:

[HongKongFooey]

Am I the only one who thinks Vince Young's throws somehow look different than any other QB out there? Vince Young on one side and Philip Rivers on the other. The Battle of the Wonky Throwing Motions. I think Rivers has an odder style than Young. Seems to work for him though.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Random NFL-related question. Am I the only one who thinks Vince Young's throws somehow look different than any other QB out there? It's hard to describe exactly what's going on - I don't think it's pure velocity because other QBs throw it pretty hard. But something just seems different when he lets go of the football, like he's playing under different gravity than everyone else or he's throwing a different ball. I can't quite describe it.
I know exactly what you mean. He kind of looks like he's taking a one-handed free throw.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Lions and Buccaneers have the same record and haven't played. I imagine that the Bucs hold the tie-breaker.

Either way, I want there to be no question. The Lions can lose and the Bucs can win and the Lions can win the Suh-weepstakes (thank you, SDMB).
You imagine correctly. The Bucs had the fifth-toughest (http://www.theredzone.org/strength.asp) schedule this season; right now the draft order would be:

1. St. Louis
2. Detroit
3. Tampa
4. Browns
5. Chiefs
6. Redskins
7. Bears
8. Seahawks
9. Raiders
10. Bills

Assuming nobody traded their first-round pick, that is *coughBearscough*.

[MovieMogul]

A perfect Christmas gift. :)

[Roland Orzabal]

WOOT!!!

Merry Christmas, ArchiveGuy! Merry Christmas, TheBoltEater! Merry Christmas, hajario! First-round byes for all, and for all a good night!

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

WOOT!!!

Merry Christmas, ArchiveGuy! Merry Christmas, TheBoltEater! Merry Christmas, hajario! First-round byes for all, and for all a good night!

The Bengals should have beaten your team. Instead, they beat themselves.

**grumble grumble, kicks rocks**

BAH HUMBUG!
:)

[Ellis Dee]

On the serious side, does an Eagles win really help you at all? Especially against an AFC opponent? I can't imagine it would.It actually hurts the Giants if the Eagles win, but not by much. It kills the Jets if they lose, though, so from a Green perspective it's an absolute must.

I grouped the teams I'm rooting for based on who they help:

Giants over Panthers
Redskins over Cowboys
Seahawks over Packers

Jets over Colts
Patriots over Jaguars
Eagles over Broncos (barf)
Steelers over Ravens
Texans over Dolphins

[SenorBeef]

Chris Johnson has a good shot at breaking the all time yards from scrimmage record, he 74 combined yards next week.

But more quietly, Josh Cribbs has a shot at breaking the all purpose yards record too. He needs 354 total yards over 2 games, and he's definitely got a shot. Johnson's feat is more impressive, but Cribbs is still awesome.

Guess who owns the current all-purpose yards record. Nope, you were wrong. Derrick Mason. Who would've thought?

Incidentally, Cribbs is the first player I've ever seen have the fans all chanting "PAY THE MAN" about. Usually fans aren't so eager to see players under long contracts to get a big raise. He deserves it, of course.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Um, the Lambs are the Rams. Who have only won once, right? :dubious:

Whoops. My bad. I thought they were at 2.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Chris Johnson has a good shot at breaking the all time yards from scrimmage record, he 74 combined yards next week.

But more quietly, Josh Cribbs has a shot at breaking the all purpose yards record too. He needs 354 total yards over 2 games, and he's definitely got a shot. Johnson's feat is more impressive, but Cribbs is still awesome.

Guess who owns the current all-purpose yards record. Nope, you were wrong. Derrick Mason. Who would've thought?

Incidentally, Cribbs is the first player I've ever seen have the fans all chanting "PAY THE MAN" about. Usually fans aren't so eager to see players under long contracts to get a big raise. He deserves it, of course.

I tend to agree, but isn't there some trepidation that he'll just become another Dante Hall?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I tend to agree, but isn't there some trepidation that he'll just become another Dante Hall?

I don't think that's possible, really. Just start with their physical makeup. Cribbs is a much bigger and more physical runner than Hall. Cribbs initiates contact rather than shies away from it.

I also don't see the Browns trying to force a square peg into a round hole trying to make Cribbs a full time wideout like the Bears have done with Hester, or like the Chiefs tried to do with Hall.

[SenorBeef]

I tend to agree, but isn't there some trepidation that he'll just become another Dante Hall?

Kick returners generally burn out fast, true. But Cribbs has been good since his rookie year. He may break the all time total yards from scrimmage record this year, and it's not even his best return year - he was utterly amazing in 2007, the best special teams season anyone has ever done IMO.

And he's not just a returner - he leads the team in special teams tackles every year - he's not just a good all around special teamer, he's actually amongst the best at covering kicks too. He looks like a linebacker out there crushing the other team's return guy. And he can make stuff happen in gimmick plays and they should give him more time running the ball.

The guy deserves to get paid for what he's already done - not a Hester contract, but he makes like 1m a year now, give him a 10m signing bonus, bump it up to 4m a year, and make him a Brown for life. For some strange reason he actually really wants to be there.

[Ellis Dee]

It actually hurts the Giants if the Eagles win, but not by much.Specifically, it forces the Vikings to play for real in week 17 or lose the first round bye, which is strong incentive. The Panthers last week made me lose all fear of Minnesota, though, so I don't much care if old man Favre plays for real or not. If the Giants can't beat the Vikings' starters they won't beat anyone in the playoffs, either.

Just as long as this season meets the Wellington Mara criteria for success, I'll be happy. He considered a season successful if the last game is meaningful, which it's still looking like it could be regardless of if the Giants win or lose it. (Lose this week to the Panthers and the season is a failure. Playing for the playoffs in week 17 is absolutely meaningful, as opposed to playing for a draft pick or something.)

[Southern Yankee]

The Panthers are laying on the G-Men big time.

[fiddlesticks]

The Panthers and the Redskins are my co-2nd-favorite teams this week. Looks good for the boys in Green and Gold.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Jesus, the blatant favoritism the Packers are getting from the officials is getting digusting.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You know, that might be more convincing if you didn't trot it out every week.

How 'bout those Giants?

Sebastian Janikowski just made a 61-yard field goal.

[DSYoungEsq]

Jesus, the blatant favoritism the Packers are getting from the officials is getting digusting.

<lauging> You really don't believe yourself when you say these things, right? You do know that it's for effect? :p

[DSYoungEsq]

What I want to know is: do the Panthers really have two different teams that they drag out in some bizzare rotation? How else do we account for the fact that one week this team plays like awesome winners, the next they play like the Lions? :eek:

Nice to see the Brownies trying to play themselves out of a decent draft pick. :)

And the Ravens and Steelers are knotted up so far. I'm really, really hoping they finish tied. :D

[DSYoungEsq]

Ah, good, Bengals touchdown with 2:00 to go. With any luck, might actually win the game. What is up with the Chiefs and their play against AFC North teams??

[HongKongFooey]

What is up with the Chiefs and their play against AFC North teams??I think our division just isn't as good as advertised.

[DSYoungEsq]

Sadly possible.

Interception by the Bengals to seal the deal. :)

And done.

[DSYoungEsq]

Matt Hasselbeck threw four interceptions against the Packers today. I'm thinking that maybe Hasselbeck isn't that good a quarterback, he might just have been another QB who shined under direct management of Holmgren.

[Oakminster]

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH

Saints blow a 17 point lead to lose in overtime, 20-17. Defense was as loose as an 80 year old hooker. Offense shot their wad by midway through the 2nd quarter.

Somebody tell me again why we dumped John Karney for the kid that missed the game winner today?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Ah, Bengals. Making my life miserable and my fingernails non-existent until the bitter end!

**breaks out AFCN Champs hat**

[HongKongFooey]

Sadly possible.

Interception by the Bengals to seal the deal. :)

And done.I hate to admit it but the Bengals look like a legitimate playoff team. I don't think they can beat the Colts but they are good enough to do some damage, especially if the corners make some plays. The Steelers and Ravens both are lacking in too many areas to do anything even if they do make the playoffs.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I hate to admit it but the Bengals look like a legitimate playoff team. I don't think they can beat the Colts but they are good enough to do some damage, especially if the corners make some plays. The Steelers and Ravens both are lacking in too many areas to do anything even if they do make the playoffs.

Its all going to hinge on a few things. One of the biggest factors is the return of injured starters on defense. We've already lost Antwan Odom and Roy Williams for the year, and now we are without Rey Maualuga (for an unknown time, depending on injury status), Chris Crocker (our other starting safety besides Williams) and Domata Peko. Peko and Crocker should be back next week (or perhaps we rest them against the Jets if no seedings are at stake), but we need Rey back for the playoffs.

The other major factor is the offense's seeming ineptitude at scoring. We can move the ball around pretty well inside the 20's, but we have been settling for way too many FG's lately in the redzone.

I also agree about our starting corners. I think they are the best tandem in the league.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Palmer's numbers have been pretty anaemic of late. What's up with that?

[SenorBeef]

Jerome Harrison got 39 carries this week. I'm ok with that.

He was also playing special teams, blocking on returns and possibly other duties. I'm not cool with that.

39 carries is an abnormally huge work load - but fine. But you also give your starting RB double a normal amount of carries AND put him on special teams? I think you may be trying to break him on purpose, in a misguided attempt to try to prove you were right for letting him sit on the bench all year.

Fucking stupid - he's inactive or gets less than 5 carries a game most of the year, then he proves how good he is - so you attempt to get him killed by suddenly upping his workload by about 10 times? Fantastic coaching there dickhole.

[HongKongFooey]

Palmer's numbers have been pretty anaemic of late. What's up with that?I was wondering that too. He seems to be overthrowing guys a lot. This late in the season there shouldn't be huge timing issues with the receivers. Compensating for an undisclosed injury perhaps? Just a WAG.

[SenorBeef]

Props to the Raiders special teams unit by the way. They managed to shut Cribbs down - mostly by good direcitonal kicking away from him, but also through good coverage units. A 61 yard field goal too.

[SenorBeef]

I'm not watching the game but stat tracker has a few passes from a "C. Painter" on the Colts. Did they sit Manning on a close game?

If so, fuck that franchise. They have a chance to make history and they toss it aside for no good reason. What a bunch of fucking pussies who deserve their early playoff exits year after year when they make this same mistake over and over.

[Bearflag70]

I'm not watching the game but stat tracker has a few passes from a "C. Painter" on the Colts. Did they sit Manning on a close game?

If so, fuck that franchise. They have a chance to make history and they toss it aside for no good reason. What a bunch of fucking pussies who deserve their early playoff exits year after year when they make this same mistake over and over.

nfl.com says starters sit after Manning hits 50,000 yds. passing milestone

[SenorBeef]

Oh, so it's important that he hits his arbitrary record ... which he'd hit next time he started anyway... but going for an extremely rare perfect season just isn't worth the effort. Gah, what blatant cockmunchery.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

What cowardly, gutless football.

More Mercury Morris. Thanks for nothing.

The Steelers are not win-and-in. Fuck the Colts.

Caldwell did EVERYBODY wrong this weekend.

[tnetennba]

One thing that's always bugged me is the NFL practice of basically throwing games late in the season, like Indy did today. It seems to cheat the fans and play fuck-all with the playoff picture, but everybody just shrugs it off. In other sports throwing games -- maybe not "trying to lose," but certainly not trying to win -- is scandalous. Yes, yes, I know all the blah blah blah about resting the starters and avoiding injuries, and I don't blame a team that's locked things up for doing it, since it's allowed, but sometimes I wonder WHY it's allowed or why nobody gives a shit.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Oh, so it's important that he hits his arbitrary record ... which he'd hit next time he started anyway... but going for an extremely rare perfect season just isn't worth the effort. Gah, what blatant cockmunchery.

But that's just it...he won't start next time!

Anyway, I sorta agree.

Re: Palmer...yeah, he's certainly not as sharp as I'd like. A few things to clear the air:

Our offensive line sucks, especially at pass-blocking. Palmer doesn't have the time luxury he once had when Willie Anderson and Levi Jones were anchoring the line from 2004-2006. We cover our TE deficiencies blocking-wise by bringing in a third OT that we motion around a lot, especially on running plays.

Our WR situation is a little off. Henry up and being injured then dying has exposed the lack of height amongst the rest of our WR's. Nobody on the Bengals had that combo of height and speed, and hardly anyone else in the NFL does, either. It hurts us downfield, other defenses know it, double and triple cover Chad, and force us to use our other options and they are mostly unproven or not as talented. Coles was supposed to help in this area but has been pretty inconsistent, although he had a good game today. He's making 10 million this season, though.

Palmer also has a torn ligament in his non-throwing left hand. He wears a special glove to keep his fingers together to help grip the ball, and he hands off with his right hand. Its funky. There hasn't been a fumble on a handoff exchange that I can recall, but it has to affect him. He will have surgery in the offseason to rectify it. Nobody is really talking about it, but its true.

Marvin Lewis is staying true to his word from the outset of last offseason, saying he was going to "blow things up" and get back to a "power running game". Well, we've done that. Problem is, it seems to have cost us some rhythm/timing in the passing game. We also don't score a lot of points in the redzone anymore, which is troubling.

Thank goodness we have a good defensive coordinator and some talent on defense, although I heard Rey Maualuga broke his ankle today and is done.

Fuck.

But that's the dealio on the Bengals. They might make some hay in the playoffs, or they'll bow out in the first game. A box of chocolates team.

[tnetennba]

A season is not really "perfect" unless every offensive play is a touchdown and the other team never scores.

[HongKongFooey]

One thing that's always bugged me is the NFL practice of basically throwing games late in the season, like Indy did today. It seems to cheat the fans and play fuck-all with the playoff picture, but everybody just shrugs it off. In other sports throwing games -- maybe not "trying to lose," but certainly not trying to win -- is scandalous. Yes, yes, I know all the blah blah blah about resting the starters and avoiding injuries, and I don't blame a team that's locked things up for doing it, since it's allowed, but sometimes I wonder WHY it's allowed or why nobody gives a shit.It's a shame for to lose a game that NY seemed determined to give away. How do you fail to block Dwight Freeney twice in one game. He was completely unblocked. Way to protect your rookie QB.

[dalej42]

So what do the Cardinals do now? They're likely to play Green Bay in back to back games. First game is meaningless, second game is the first round of the playoffs.

I'd say go for the win next week. No, I don't want to see any injuries, but the home field advantage the Cards will have won't be much of an advantage. There's quite a few Wisconsin transplants here in Phoenix so the stadium will be at least 25% Packer fans. The Cardinals should go into the playoffs on a roll with 3 wins in a row.

Interestingly enough, the Cardinals also played the Packers during the preseason in Phoenix. 3 home games against the same team in the NFL? Not very common, although it may have happened before.

[SenorBeef]

The Colts throwing the game had significant playoff implications due to all the teams bunched up around 7-7. How would you like it if your team only got in because someone got to play against the next Jim Sorgi, or if you get kicked out because someone got a free win? Disgusting.

The Colts did this to the Browns in 2007 - granted, the Browns could've won more and forced their way in, but the Colts, in addition to playing Sorgi & Friends, DID NOT EVEN TRY TO WIN. They were down by like 4, with 2 minutes left on the clock and 3 timeouts and the other team had the ball and they decided to not even use their timeouts, they just let the clock run out. The other team started kneeling with like over a minute left with the Colts sitting there with time outs. In a very blatant way, they let the other team win - not even a matter of resting your starters, but not even letting the second string guys who are in there have a shot at winning anyway.

Fuck that franchise.

[Sal Ammoniac]

About the only interesting thing to come out of today's Patriots game is that the typography on the Jaguars' jerseys makes it look at first glance like their quarterback is named GRRRRRD.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

The Colts throwing the game had significant playoff implications due to all the teams bunched up around 7-7. How would you like it if your team only got in because someone got to play against the next Jim Sorgi, or if you get kicked out because someone got a free win? Disgusting.

The Colts did this to the Browns in 2007 - granted, the Browns could've won more and forced their way in, but the Colts, in addition to playing Sorgi & Friends, DID NOT EVEN TRY TO WIN. They were down by like 4, with 2 minutes left on the clock and 3 timeouts and the other team had the ball and they decided to not even use their timeouts, they just let the clock run out. The other team started kneeling with like over a minute left with the Colts sitting there with time outs. In a very blatant way, they let the other team win - not even a matter of resting your starters, but not even letting the second string guys who are in there have a shot at winning anyway.

Fuck that franchise.

I only take issue with your statement to point out that had Cleveland never racked up that insane yardage total against the Bengals in a crazy-assed game, then Anderson doesn't make the Probowl, the Browns don't make the postseason, etc, Romeo looks slimmer, etc.

I like the Colts. Didn't they win a Superbowl recently by resting starters?

[SenorBeef]

I don't see how what you said is relevant to what I said.

And no, their only superbowl came from a year where they had to fight through the end of the season for their playoff spot and then play wildcard weekend. The only time in recent history they didn't rest their starters, they won the superbowl.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I don't see how what you said is relevant to what I said.

And no, their only superbowl came from a year where they had to fight through the end of the season for their playoff spot and then play wildcard weekend. The only time in recent history they didn't rest their starters, they won the superbowl.

Fine. So in other words, the Colts need to stop resting their starters?

OK, I keed, I keed! I may like the Colts a little, but fuck them anyway. As long as they don't interfere with the Bengals winning the Bowl, then they can do whatever they like...
;)

[HongKongFooey]

As long as they don't interfere with the Bengals winning the Bowl, then they can do whatever they like...
You're planning to lose in the early rounds? That'll show 'em! :p

[Marley23]

I like the Colts. Didn't they win a Superbowl recently by resting starters?
I like the Colts and thought this was a stupid choice. I hope it doesn't bite them in the ass like it has every other time. :smack:

[mhendo]

Is there a worse place in the nation to watch the NFL (without having the NFL network) than the Bay Area? Two shitty teams, and you have to watch both of their games, with no competition.

If i had been at home in San Diego today, i could have watched the Ravens-Steelers game at 10am, with occasional flicking over to see the Panthers crush the Giants, and then the Broncos-Eagles game at 1.00. Instead, i get to see the Raiders-Browns, followed by the Lions-49ers. Three and a half shitty teams (SF is at least half a decent team), playing two completely meaningless games. And both games were as boring as all fuck.

If i hadn't still been feeling under the weather after a bout of mild food poisoning, i would have dragged my ass downtown to a sports bar.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Is there a worse place in the nation to watch the NFL (without having the NFL network) than the Bay Area? Two shitty teams, and you have to watch both of their games, with no competition.

If i had been at home in San Diego today, i could have watched the Ravens-Steelers game at 10am, with occasional flicking over to see the Panthers crush the Giants, and then the Broncos-Eagles game at 1.00. Instead, i get to see the Raiders-Browns, followed by the Lions-49ers. Three and a half shitty teams (SF is at least half a decent team), playing two completely meaningless games. And both games were as boring as all fuck.

If i hadn't still been feeling under the weather after a bout of mild food poisoning, i would have dragged my ass downtown to a sports bar.

The Freezer Bowl legacy is haunting you.

[VarlosZ]

The Colts throwing the game had significant playoff implications due to all the teams bunched up around 7-7. How would you like it if your team only got in because someone got to play against the next Jim Sorgi, or if you get kicked out because someone got a free win? Disgusting.

The Colts did this to the Browns in 2007 - granted, the Browns could've won more and forced their way in, but the Colts, in addition to playing Sorgi & Friends, DID NOT EVEN TRY TO WIN. They were down by like 4, with 2 minutes left on the clock and 3 timeouts and the other team had the ball and they decided to not even use their timeouts, they just let the clock run out. The other team started kneeling with like over a minute left with the Colts sitting there with time outs. In a very blatant way, they let the other team win - not even a matter of resting your starters, but not even letting the second string guys who are in there have a shot at winning anyway.

Fuck that franchise.
I don't think the vitriol is warranted. I, too, would prefer to see the Colts play hard the whole way through (for a couple of reasons), but resting starters in games which are meaningless to you is 99% standard operating procedure for every team. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Pats-Giants in '07, and those were special circumstances. For whatever reason, the idea of a 16-0 regular season just wasn't considered such a big deal this time around.

I find it distasteful as well, but unless you're taking a "fuck that franchise" position with just about every team that's had a chance to rest starters over the past however many years, I don't get why you're so pissed about the 2009 Colts.

[SenorBeef]

A few compounding factors. Being a game and a half away from a perfect regular season is such a rare opportunity that it seems absurd to me to just give it up. If you sit your starters because you're 13-2 and have the #1 seed locked up that's fairly different. I don't like it usually, but it doesn't piss me off massively, especially if the game doesn't have other implications.

In my mind, a 16-0 season is more impressive than a superbowl win - and imagine how you'd feel if Peyton Manning sat out for half the superbowl for no good reason.

And for what? How much risk is there? He gets sacked less than once a game and he never gets hurt.

Additionally, the Colts do this shit all the time, and never learn for it. They sit their starters for 2+ weeks (often including a bye), come out rusty, and get bounced out early in the playoffs. The one time they had to play the whole way was the time they won the superbowl. It's somewhat puzzling why they don't learn this lesson, and it's even more aggravating that they don't seem to realize that playing for 16-0 is both a chance at a historic achievement, and based on their history, a better chance at winning in the playoffs anyway. So you are both thumbing your nose at making history and at what your historical results show what works best for your team.

That and we've got like 6 seeds competing for the wildcard slot, and a big factor in determining who gets to go to the playoffs is who gets to play Indy late in the season after they've packed it in. Teams should not be able to get into the playoffs or knocked out of them based on who's lucky enough to need the Colts to lose late in the season. It's not fair to the teams who have to play 16 opponents who are actually trying to beat them and make a playoff record off that compared to teams who don't need to play a full schedule because the Colts aren't really trying to win against them.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I'm also not feeling the hate for sitting players down. This also comes from someone that thinks that kneel-downs to kill the clock are pretty cowardly.


I dunno. I know that an undefeated season is a special occasion, but I can't help thinking that teams that are in that position, and also wrap up home field advantage, would be better served by sitting folks and keeping them fresh for the postseason.

It doesn't mean as much (I guess) if you go undefeated and don't win the Super Bowl. Give me the Super Bowl over an undefeated season any day of the week. Additionally, it's not like the Colts are automatically going to be an awesome team every year. Nobody saw how flat the Titans would come out this year, and I'm sure people looked at their schedules before the season started and thought the same thing. Same with the Steelers.

[SenorBeef]

I dunno. I know that an undefeated season is a special occasion, but I can't help thinking that teams that are in that position, and also wrap up home field advantage, would be better served by sitting folks and keeping them fresh for the postseason.




Keeping their starters "fresh" has failed for the Colts over and over again anyway. They're going to get a first week bye - that's enough to get some rest without getting rusty. If they start tanking it in week 16, that's almost a month since they played a serious football game.



It doesn't mean as much (I guess) if you go undefeated and don't win the Super Bowl. Give me the Super Bowl over an undefeated season any day of the week. Additionally, it's not like the Colts are automatically going to be an awesome team every year. Nobody saw how flat the Titans would come out this year, and I'm sure people looked at their schedules before the season started and thought the same thing. Same with the Steelers.

It's not an either/or choice. They're not choosing superbowl vs 16-0. They can have both. And given their history of doing better when they don't rest their starters, it seems like going for both increases the likelihood of a superbowl win.

Everyone knows the '72 Dolphins. Do you know who won the super bowl in '68 or '81 or most years? I personally think the 2007 Pats season is probably the greatest season ever played by an NFL team even though they didn't end up winning the superbowl, given their circumstances, strength of schedule, and margin of victory.

It doesn't matter whether the Colts are good or not or what teams think of them. A team that plays 16 teams that are trying their best to beat them is not on equal footing with a team that has one team take a game off against them. Let's take this to an extreme to demonstrate my point - let's say the Colts didn't want any wear and tear on any of their players, and they forfeitted their next 2 games and they weren't even played. The Jets might get in the playoffs strictly on the basis of being lucky enough to catch the Colts during the forfeit, and whatever team they replace in the playoffs gets shafted.

[SenorBeef]

I should add... there's no way everyone on that team is happy with this. To get near perfection, to have a shot at the greatest season any NFL team has ever had (16-0 and a superbowl win beats the '72 Dolphins and the '07 Patriots, at least in win total). This is going to brew trouble in the locker room. Instead of having a team that came into the playoffs at 16-0, unified and energized with a sense of purpose and unity, now they're going to have disgruntled players in disharmony who will also be rusty when the playoffs start. This decision is bad from pretty much every direction you want to look at it.

I hope it breeds resentment in the locker room, I hope it makes them rusty, I hope they lose their first playoff game 63-0. Fuck them.

[Little Nemo]

A stupid decison by the Colts in my opinion. I kept hearing the talk about the "big picture" but I think they lost sight of the bigger picture. Is winning the Super Bowl important? Obviously yes. But they've done that. Forty three teams have done that. And the week after the Super Bowl everything is reset to zero and you start a thinking about the new season.

But an undefeated season is a historical event in professional football. It's not an opportunity to be lightly tossed away as not worth the effort. You ask a group of fans which team had an undefeated season and which team won last year's Super Bowl and I'll bet more people can tell you the former rather than the latter.

I was looking at Manning and the other Colts on the sideline and I saw a team that was being broken. They were being told that an undefeated season is unimportant and this was just another football game. How are the coaches and managers going to be able to turn around in a couple of weeks and convince them that this week's game is somehow more important than the one they threw away?

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Colts don't owe you guys a damn thing. However, I do think it's a self-defeating practice. Every time they sit players in Weeks 16 and 17, they wind up coming out flat in the divisional round and losing.

[HongKongFooey]

I agree. If the Steelers miss the playoffs it won't be because Indy didn't help them out it will be because they lost three games that should have been slam dunks.

[SenorBeef]

The Colts don't owe you guys a damn thing. However, I do think it's a self-defeating practice. Every time they sit players in Weeks 16 and 17, they wind up coming out flat in the divisional round and losing.

I think the Colts (and other teams in a situation) arguably do owe the sport in general something. Our system for determining playoffs relies on a win/loss system and tie breaker comparisons that essentially assume that everyone is at least trying to win their games in good faith, which makes comparing the records of different teams fair. If one team isn't really trying, and wins come due a game happening to be scheduled on week 16 instead of week 5, then it damages the integrity of the whole system. Again I'll ask - what if the Colts just followed their idea to its logical conclusion and simply refused to show up after they had the #1 seed locked up and forfeitted the games? Would you feel differently then?

Anyway, I'm not saying they've violated a contract with me, I'm saying that I hold their franchise in contempt for this stupid practice. And this is especially because they are likely hurting their team in the process - they are thumbing their nose at the NFL and their chance to make history, upsetting the playoff race, and in the process probably worsening their own chances for further success. Every relevant factor suggests this is a bad decision - so considering that it's both stupid and wrong, I would say it's a perfectly valid reason to have disdain for a franchise.

[bordelond]

AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH

Saints blow a 17 point lead to lose in overtime, 20-17. Defense was as loose as an 80 year old hooker. Offense shot their wad by midway through the 2nd quarter.

Somebody tell me again why we dumped John Karney for the kid that missed the game winner today?
Remember how bad Carney was this season, including all the clanging of goalposts against New England?

That was Hartley's first career miss inside of 50 yards. IMHO, it was absolutel a psychoogical miss. Hopefully, he'll bounce back.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's not the Colts' fault they've already clinched and have nothing to play for; your beef is with the NFL. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the Colts putting forth a minimal effort or no effort at all, at least from a football standpoint.

I do think they owe it to their fans to play for the win, though.

ETA: Go Bucs!

[Oakminster]

Chalk up another guy not happy with the Colts blowing off a shot at 16-0.

Then again, I'm one of the few guys that hopes the '72 Dolphins do the rumored toast thing. Kinda wish they'd do it at half time of the Monday night game. Have Morris, Czonka, et al arrive at the stadium in a stretch limo, decked out in tuxedos, escorted to a private suite, and pop the bubbly live in prime time. :D

[Gangster Octopus]

The only issue I have with the Colts decision is that I think it is not a good decision for the team, especially if they play the starters barely at all next week. They then get a bye and then they will be expected to come out and play playoff football? Very risky in my opinion.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Then again, I'm one of the few guys that hopes the '72 Dolphins do the rumored toast thing. Kinda wish they'd do it at half time of the Monday night game. Have Morris, Czonka, et al arrive at the stadium in a stretch limo, decked out in tuxedos, escorted to a private suite, and pop the bubbly live in prime time. :D
I'm not sure it would be practical to fly the entire surviving '72 Dolphins squad into Washington D.C. just in case the Colts lost.
The only issue I have with the Colts decision is that I think it is not a good decision for the team, especially if they play the starters barely at all next week. They then get a bye and then they will be expected to come out and play playoff football? Very risky in my opinion.
I have to believe this is Jim Irsay or Bill Polian's policy. I just don't see any reason for Caldwell to follow it just because Dungy did; Caldwell's done a lot of things quite differently from Dungy, even though his coaching style is similar (soft-spoken, "players' coach", etc.)

[Surly Chick]

Can someone please explain to me why it was OK for the Colts to essentially throw the game/perfect season under the pretense of "resting?" There's no resting in football!!! I'm sure there were millions of people of betting on on the game (either legally or not) and there appear to be no repercussions for not giving it 100% and actually trying to win. How is it any different from intentionally throwing a game for gambling purposes? How do we know that that's not what actually happened? The whole thing disgusts me and I hope they get their collective asses handed to them in the playoffs.

Surly (who did not bet on the game but if she had she would be even surlier.)

[Ellis Aponte Jr.]

It should be mentioned that the '72 Dolphins used their backup quarterback (Earl Morrall) for over half of their games that season. The team still ran the table because they were a complete team. Regular starter Bob Griese went down in week 5 and didn't start again until the Super Bowl. The '09 Colts are great, but can you imagine them pulling themselves out of a similar situation?

The champagne may not taste as sweet this year, but I personally love the tradition of the "celebration" in Miami. I would expect anyone to be proud of such a singular achievement & to cherish the memory.

[Gangster Octopus]

It should be mentioned that the '72 Dolphins used their backup quarterback (Earl Morrall) for over half of their games that season. The team still ran the table because they were a complete team. Regular starter Bob Griese went down in week 5 and didn't start again until the Super Bowl. The '09 Colts are great, but can you imagine them pulling themselves out of a similar situation?

The champagne may not taste as sweet this year, but I personally love the tradition of the "celebration" in Miami. I would expect anyone to be proud of such a singular achievement & to cherish the memory.

The '72 Dolphins also had one of the weakest schedules...EVER.

Cite. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=3107054)

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I'm a Colts fan and when they first pulled Manning with a 5 point-lead in the 3rd Q. I sighed and shook my head but thought. Oh well. I guess that was they game-plan all along and they all knew it. Let's see what the rookie QB can do, and hope our defense stays sharp.

Then I noticed it wasn't just about protecting Manning-- they were taking out most of the other big-time starters as well--on both sides of the ball! That's when I really started to get mad. And then, when young Painter showed he wasn't going to be effective (not really his fault, he was put in a really tough spot) I was actually naive enough to believe that Caldwell might put his first team back on the field and have a go at it. You know... as in he was just making a bit of a feint--trying to rest starters early and see what happened, then make adjustments if needed. I guess seeing Payton on the sidelines with his helmet still on and his chin-strap still fastened help lead me to believe this.

Nope. He never intended to do what it would take to win--no matter what happened. The more I thought about it, and the more the Jets scored, the madder I got.

Psychologically, it just doesn't do the the Colts any good. They all knew that bullshit might be coming, but when it actually went down, that had to have crushed the spirit of the team (not to mention 99% of the Colt's fans--99% of ALL NFL fans, actually--except the Jet's fans, most Patriots' fans, and the '72 Dolphins).

That sort of thing just comes back to bite you in the ass in the playoffs, and the Colts should know that better than anyone. So what IF Manning had had a season-ending injury? Or Dwight Freeney, Reggie Wayne, or Dallas Clark? Is this a chmpionship-caliber TEAM, or just a primadonna surrounded by a group of Star Trek red-shirts?

There is a risk of injury at any given point in the season--it is a rough game. But less-drastic adjustments could have been made to mitigate the chances of a crushing injury. The Colt's were up five-- so, for example, they could have kept Clark on the line more than usual to help block and protect Manning (who is already supremely well-protected).

And they could have avoided all the dangerous crossing slot-routes unless absolutely necessary. They could have tried to build up the score some and if successful, THEN pull Manning in the 4th Q. As for Reggie Wayne, have him run safer routes. Marvin Harrison made a Hall-of-Fame career playing only along the sidelines avoiding every single hit he could... have Wayne play that way the rest of the way.

Just play real-man, full-strength, NFL football through at LEAST the end of the 3rd quarter and if the Colts are up by enough points (or down by enough points) THEN consider bringing out SOME of your starters.

Like many others, I think this has only hurt their Super-Bowl chances--not helped them.

Sad.

[Ellis Aponte Jr.]

The '72 Dolphins also had one of the weakest schedules...EVER.

Cite. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=3107054)

Interesting stuff, but it just points to why an undefeated season is so special. We can argue back & forth forever about who really is the greatest team ever, who would've beaten whom, who got lucky or was unlucky, etc. Greatness will always be subjective. But a perfect record is an objective fact & can never be taken away. Incidentally I think the '07 Patriots were truly awesome, but you couldn't really (even if you had a time machine) play them against the '72 Dolphins because the two teams would be accustomed to completely different blocking, holding, & pass interference rules.

[Morgenstern]

I've been a Charger fan since Dan Fouts. All I can say is I've seen them make it to the playoffs and forget to bring their A game more than once. Now that they have made the post season, I just hope they all bring their A game. Please, let them bring their A game o Football God.

[Little Nemo]

The Colts don't owe you guys a damn thing.That raises the central issue; why do professional athletes play? It's an entertainment business so in that sense they do owe their audience something.

What's the goal of the team? Is it to maximize its profits? It would seem an undefeated season would have sold a lot of tickets for them. And a huge amount of merchandising.

Is their goal to pursue glory or build up the legacy of the team? Again, go for the win.

Is their goal to promote the best long-term prospects of the team? In that case, they shouldn't have played for the win. But they also should never play for the win. They've already signed their current roster so that's set. The best plan for improving the team in the future is draft prospects and a 0-16 record gives them the best picks.

Same with the goal of keeping the team healthy. Why play Manning ever? Every time you put him on the field you risk him being injured. You follow the logic of protecting him and you should bench him all season. But Painter is also a Colt. When you pull Manning away from the risk of injury, you expose Painter (or Willy) to that risk instead. So why pull Manning? Because of his value as a player. But how does he have playing value if he isn't playing?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm sure there were millions of people of betting on on the game (either legally or not) and there appear to be no repercussions for not giving it 100% and actually trying to win. How is it any different from intentionally throwing a game for gambling purposes? How do we know that that's not what actually happened? The whole thing disgusts me and I hope they get their collective asses handed to them in the playoffs.
If anyone bet on the game and didn't know there was a 50% chance that Manning would be pulled by the third quarter they are stupid and deserve to lose their money. It's been the biggest story of the final quarter of the season.
Same with the goal of keeping the team healthy. Why play Manning ever? Every time you put him on the field you risk him being injured. You follow the logic of protecting him and you should bench him all season. But Painter is also a Colt. When you pull Manning away from the risk of injury, you expose Painter (or Willy) to that risk instead. So why pull Manning? Because of his value as a player. But how does he have playing value if he isn't playing?
Is this a serious question/argument? Manning played in the first 13 games because the Colts had not yet locked up the first seed. Now that they have locked up the first seed, winning more games will not do them any good.

The Colts have made it very clear that their only goals are to win their divison and the Super Bowl. Playing Manning in the final three games does nothing to help achieve the first goal, and the Colts believe (arguably wrongly) that it doesn't help them achieve the second either.

[SenorBeef]

The Bengals are going to be in a similar position this week, and since their game got flexed they'll have the luxury of knowing whether or not they can keep the Steelers out of the playoffs. Not sure what they do.

What sucks though is that the Jets may end up winning their last 2 games of the year against teams who aren't trying to beat them. It's unfair that one team gets into the playoffs of another equally or more deserving team, based on the fact that they were lucky enough to catch other teams not trying to win at the end of their schedule instead of catching the same teams in the front. In that case the results come down to coincidence rather then merit.

[tnetennba]

The Colts owe the people paid to see a football game a football game.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Bengals are still playing for the #3 seed, aren't they? Not that it makes much difference; heck, they'd probably rather play Indy than San Diego again.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

The Bengals are still playing for the #3 seed, aren't they? Not that it makes much difference; heck, they'd probably rather play Indy than San Diego again.

They are, but since their game got moved to Sunday night, they'll know before the game starts whether they can get it or not. I read somewhere that Marvin Lewis had exchanged a couple texts with a writer that indicated that the Bengals were going to play to win the game. I hope so. I can see maybe taking Palmer out of the game by the second half, but not anybody else.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Fun fact: the Buccaneers quite literally pulled off the biggest mathematical upset in NFL history yesterday. The Bucs' win over the Saints was the first time a team 10 or more games under .500 defeated a team 10 or more games over .500.

[VarlosZ]

Psychologically, it just doesn't do the the Colts any good. They all knew that bullshit might be coming, but when it actually went down, that had to have crushed the spirit of the team. . .
I never bought this type of argument. I don't doubt that there really are times when a team is demoralized or suffering through some other kind of psychological ailment that impedes their on-field performance, but I do object to the notion that we, as fans, have more than the foggiest idea of what these impediments might be, under what circumstances they apply (either generally or in a specific case), or exactly what kind of effects they tend to have.

Of course, I'm just as ignorant of these things as anyone else, so maybe resting starters really does hurt the Colts, psychologically or otherwise. I will raise two objections, however. First, more generally, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Second, to point out merely that the one time Indy won the Super Bowl they had to play through Week 17 is to ignore both relevant context for that fact and evidence which runs counter to your argument. They rested and then lost a very close playoff game to a Steelers team which played a phenomenal defensive game; they also rested and then lost an overtime game against a Chargers team that always gives them a lot of trouble -- these might just be cases of losing close games against top-flight competition, not of being rusty. Or how about the '04 Colts, who sat their starters for virtually the entire Week 17 game, and then came out in the first playoff game and absolutely demolished a good Broncos team?

Again, I say this as someone who wishes that they'd have played for real, for mostly the same reasons as everyone else: it's good for the fans, it's good for the league, the playoffs aren't the only thing that matters, and if resting has some beneficial effect on their playoff chances, it's probably a pretty minimal gain in expectation. But still, if Bill freaking Polian thinks that resting starters gives the '09 Colts the best possible chance to win a Super Bowl, who am I to tell him I know better?

[Really Not All That Bright]

The '02ish-'05 Colts demolished the Broncos every time they played, so I'm not sure that's indicative of anything.

[Gangster Octopus]

But still, if Bill freaking Polian thinks that resting starters gives the '09 Colts the best possible chance to win a Super Bowl, who am I to tell him I know better?

You're a fan, you can tell him you know better, you can tell him he screwed up, that is what we as fans do.

[SenorBeef]

Varlos, it's hard to quantify "momentum" and other psychological factors - but in recent years especially, there's much to be said for teams that are peaking at the end of the season. Arizona wasn't the best team in the NFC last year but they rode a wave of confidence and other psychological factors through the playoffs. I think the Giants would not have been the force they were in the '07 playoffs if they hadn't played that epic game with the Pats at the end of the season, etc.

I can't say for sure what the Colts players are thinking, but I have a hard time believing most would be okay with this. They're fierce, natural competitors - they want to win every game even when their team is garbage and they're 2-14. To think that they had a chance to make history, the first 19-0 season, and just chucked it away due to a pretty small chance of injury has to piss them off. I certainly would be pissed off. I can't imagine the Colts will be playing better on division weekend limping into the playoffs on a 2 game losing streak with disgruntled, dissapointed people in the locker room compared to them coming off the third undefeated NFL regular season in history with a sense of purpose and unity.

This decision just seems bad to me from like 36 different angles.

[Hawkeyeop]

Varlos, it's hard to quantify "momentum" and other psychological factors - but in recent years especially, there's much to be said for teams that are peaking at the end of the season. Arizona wasn't the best team in the NFC last year but they rode a wave of confidence and other psychological factors through the playoffs. I think the Giants would not have been the force they were in the '07 playoffs if they hadn't played that epic game with the Pats at the end of the season, etc.
.

You are arguing the Arizona Cardinals as an important example of end of season momentum? The Cardinals were terrible down the stretch and just won the division because it was even worse. They then proceeded to play much better football in the playoffs. There is no evidence in any major U.S. sport that late season performance has any effect on post season record. I wanted the Colts to go 16-0 too, but they aren't any less likely to win a super bowl today than when they were 14-0.

[SenorBeef]

You're right, I forgot the egg they laid at New England at the end of the season. I guess I was using more generalized "hot at the right time" evidence, but that was ill considered.

[Oakminster]

Fun fact: the Buccaneers quite literally pulled off the biggest mathematical upset in NFL history yesterday. The Bucs' win over the Saints was the first time a team 10 or more games under .500 defeated a team 10 or more games over .500.

Huh? The Saints were 13-1 going in to the game with the Bucs. That's only 6 games over .500 for that point in the season.

[SenorBeef]

Maybe "with at least 10 more losses than wins" vs "at least 10 more wins than losses"?

[mhendo]

Huh? The Saints were 13-1 going in to the game with the Bucs. That's only 6 games over .500 for that point in the season.
it appears that RNATB was using the baseball method of determining games above or below .500.

In baseball, if your record is 13-9, you are said to be four games over .500, despite the fact that a .500 record would actually place you at 11-11, or only 2 games below your current position. Similarly, if you're 13-1, that's 12 games over .500, not 6, even though the latter is a much better description of reality.

I've always thought it was a stupid way to describe a team's performance, but it's pretty standard fare in baseball.

[tnetennba]

Huh? The Saints were 13-1 going in to the game with the Bucs. That's only 6 games over .500 for that point in the season.

I don't know what you are saying here. "games over .500" means that you subtract losses from wins and take what's left. They do it a lot in baseball and that's how it's done.

[tnetennba]

It makes mathematical sense and is appropriate in baseball because it gives you a good barometer for how a team is doing at any point in the season that's easy to track. Most people can add or subtract "1" once per game and always know how their team is doing. Most cannot remember the exact w/l numbers.

[mhendo]

I don't know what you are saying here. "games over .500" means that you subtract losses from wins and take what's left. They do it a lot in baseball and that's how it's done.Right, but it's an idiomatic usage, not a logical, mathematical one.

Lets take two teams.

Team A: 13-1
Team B: 7-7

Team B is at .500, and Team A is 6 games ahead of Team B.

And yet team A is also, perversely, 12 games over .500.

Completely inconsistent. And it's especially silly in baseball where Games Ahead and Games Behind are, over the course of a long season, very important numbers.

In fact, contrary to cricetus's claim, it's actually a bad way to do things in baseball. If i say to you, "Team A is 6 games over .500, and Team B is exactly at .500," that implies that Team B is 6 games behind Team A. But, using the current system, Team B would, in fact, be only 3 games back. The inconsistency is silly.

[Oakminster]

it appears that RNATB was using the baseball method of determining games above or below .500.

In baseball, if your record is 13-9, you are said to be four games over .500, despite the fact that a .500 record would actually place you at 11-11, or only 2 games below your current position. Similarly, if you're 13-1, that's 12 games over .500, not 6, even though the latter is a much better description of reality.

I've always thought it was a stupid way to describe a team's performance, but it's pretty standard fare in baseball.

Ignorance fought. Thanks.

[Gangster Octopus]

Right, but it's an idiomatic usage, not a logical, mathematical one.

Lets take two teams.

Team A: 13-1
Team B: 7-7

Team B is at .500, and Team A is 6 games ahead of Team B.

And yet team A is also, perversely, 12 games over .500.

Completely inconsistent. And it's especially silly in baseball where Games Ahead and Games Behind are, over the course of a long season, very important numbers.

In fact, contrary to cricetus's claim, it's actually a bad way to do things in baseball. If i say to you, "Team A is 6 games over .500, and Team B is exactly at .500," that implies that Team B is 6 games behind Team A. But, using the current system, Team B would, in fact, be only 3 games back. The inconsistency is silly.


I presonally think the inconsistency comes in the "games back" definition. If I am ten miles from you we don't say I am five miles away, even though if we both moved toward each other at a consistent rate we could meet after five miles. "Games back" is the same thing, a team is three games back only in the sense that if they win three games and the other person loses three game then you are caught up.

[DSYoungEsq]

The reason someone says "games over .500" to mean subtract losses from wins is that it tells you how many games they have to win to get back to even, or how many losses they could withstand and still be even. Baseball seasons being quite long, this makes more sense than it does for football.

It is also the case that the average person is so mathematically handicapped they don't understand why using the words this way is technically wrong. :p

As for the underlying issue, the fact that a team with ten or more fewer wins than losses beat a team with ten or more wins than losses for the first time ever, I'm not impressed. The chances are reduced by the fact that it cannot happen at all until game 10 of the season, and then only with a winless team vs. a lossless team. I'm imagining that the schedule doesn't allow for more than two or maybe three such games a year, at best. And in the days of the 12-game season, it probably was a matchup that only happened a couple times a decade.

[mhendo]

I presonally think the inconsistency comes in the "games back" definition. If I am ten miles from you we don't say I am five miles away, even though if we both moved toward each other at a consistent rate we could meet after five miles. "Games back" is the same thing, a team is three games back only in the sense that if they win three games and the other person loses three game then you are caught up.But then, by your definition, there is NO possible way to have a logical "games back" number. After all, if the team that's ahead doesn't lose any games, the team behind can never catch up, no matter what "games back" definition you use. Any definition of "games back" that is going to have any meaning at all must always assume that the trailing team needs to win a certain number of games and the leading team needs to lose a certain number of games.

[tnetennba]

Right, but it's an idiomatic usage, not a logical, mathematical one.

Lets take two teams.

Team A: 13-1
Team B: 7-7

Team B is at .500, and Team A is 6 games ahead of Team B.

And yet team A is also, perversely, 12 games over .500.

Completely inconsistent. And it's especially silly in baseball where Games Ahead and Games Behind are, over the course of a long season, very important numbers.



What exactly is "inconsistent"? Whether you like the phrasing or not, it has an internal logic that is extractable from the phrasing and universally enforced. There's nothing "inconsistent" about saying a 7-7 team is at .500 and a 13-1 team is 12 games over .500. If there is, you need to do more than simply say that one result is "perversely" what it is and actually tell me what rule is followed in the first case and not in the second, i.e., what is "inconsistent."



In fact, contrary to cricetus's claim, it's actually a bad way to do things in baseball. If i say to you, "Team A is 6 games over .500, and Team B is exactly at .500," that implies that Team B is 6 games behind Team A. But, using the current system, Team B would, in fact, be only 3 games back. The inconsistency is silly.

The worst thing that will happen is people will have that mathematical discovery that three losses turned into wins makes a six game difference in win-loss differential.

[tnetennba]

I presonally think the inconsistency comes in the "games back" definition. If I am ten miles from you we don't say I am five miles away, even though if we both moved toward each other at a consistent rate we could meet after five miles. "Games back" is the same thing, a team is three games back only in the sense that if they win three games and the other person loses three game then you are caught up.

And yet football fans, some of the stupidest people on God's earth, seem to grasp what it means... somehow...

[TheBoltEater]

I read somewhere that Marvin Lewis had exchanged a couple texts with a writer that indicated that the Bengals were going to play to win the game.

Hmmm.... That sentence seems to remind me of something (www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I).....

[mhendo]

There's nothing "inconsistent" about saying a 7-7 team is at .500 and a 13-1 team is 12 games over .500. Perhaps, but you left out part of my argument.

Where the inconsistency lies is in saying the three following things:

1) a 7-7 team is at .500
2) a 13-1 team is 12 games over .500
3) a 13-1 team is 6 games ahead of a 7-7 team

It's like saying:

a=b
c=b+12
c=a+6

Something in there does not compute, mathematically. Idiomatically, it's fine, as long as everyone knows and understands the quirks of the system, but it's not very consistent.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I was using the "baseball definition" because that's what the NBC studio graphic used. Apologies for any confusion.

[TheBoltEater]

WOOT!!!

Merry Christmas, ArchiveGuy! Merry Christmas, TheBoltEater! Merry Christmas, hajario! First-round byes for all, and for all a good night!

First I got all 4 of the 50th anniversary posters (blog.chargers.com/2009/11/12/chargers-vs-eagles/) from my lovely wife, then I got to watch that butt-whooping. Oh, it was a very Merry Christmas indeed.

[tnetennba]

Perhaps, but you left out part of my argument.

Where the inconsistency lies is in saying the three following things:

1) a 7-7 team is at .500
2) a 13-1 team is 12 games over .500
3) a 13-1 team is 6 games ahead of a 7-7 team

It's like saying:

a=b
c=b+12
c=a+6

Something in there does not compute, mathematically. Idiomatically, it's fine, as long as everyone knows and understands the quirks of the system, but it's not very consistent.

It's completely consistent if you understand that "over .500" does not mean "games ahead of a .500 team."

[UncleNito]

I still remember back in '94 when the 49ers basically screwed the Packers out of the NFC Central championship. The Packers were in as a Wild Card and needed the Vikings to lose to win the division. San Fransisco was at Minnesota on Monday night, the very last game of the season. They pulled their starters after a series or two, and lost the game. I was pretty pissed about it at the time, but the Packers have pretty much owned the 49ers ever since. Including three straight playoff wins, beginning with an ass-whuppin in San Fransisco the following year.

The 49ers actually won their last Super Bowl that year, but for some reason AFC teams have had different luck. Not just Indy, but Denver and KC back in the day.

My point being, AFC fans, if the Jets make the playoffs and your team doesn't, don't get mad, get even.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I remember that game. The 49ers had HFA locked up, and the Vikings were out of playoff contention, so neither team really had anything to play for. The Vikings hit Steve Young a couple of times early, and scored a TD off a strip/sack of Young in the first quarter. After that, the 49er coach (I think it was still Seifert at the time) had seen enough and yanked Young.

It was an otherwise dominating season for San Fancisco, and they coasted to a Superbowl win. They pretty much shrugged off the loss to the Vikings as mildly annoying, but not really very significant, and it didn't affect their post season at all. Sometimes "momentum" can be an overrated factor.

[tnetennba]

I'm trying to figure out a scenario where the Vikes were eliminated but the Packers needed them to lose to win the division.

[HongKongFooey]

The only math in football should be in tallying the score and figuring out the yards to go for the first down! :mad:

[UncleNito]

I'm trying to figure out a scenario where the Vikes were eliminated but the Packers needed them to lose to win the division.

The Vikings won the division that year. All three WCs came out of the Central, and the Bears beat the Vikings in the first round of the playoffs. So DtC was only off by a week ;)

[tnetennba]

Wait. The Bears were in the play offs? Now I'm really confused... ;)

[UncleNito]

Wait. The Bears were in the play offs? Now I'm really confused... ;)

The Lions, too. Heady days for the Black & Blue Division :p

[DSYoungEsq]

Speaking of the Vikings and the Bears, the Bears are putting some real hurt on the Vikings. Glad to see that there is no affect on the Vikings from the disagreement between Favre and Childress. :p

[Omniscient]

Bullshit PI call on Tillman. Rice was grabbing him and preventing what could have been a pick.

[tnetennba]

OMG, they threw a flag against the Bears. Didn't know they were allowed. I've sat here and watched face masks, DPI, late hits, and holding go unflagged the whole game.

[UncleNito]

A whole game between Favre and Cutler with no INTs -- I knew that wouldn't last.

[ShadowFacts]

Bullshit PI call on Tillman. Rice was grabbing him and preventing what could have been a pick.

Really? You must be watching an entirely different game. In the one I am watching, Tillman should have been arrested for indecent assault on that play. :D

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

OMG, they threw a flag against the Bears. Didn't know they were allowed. I've sat here and watched face masks, DPI, late hits, and holding go unflagged the whole game.

cricetus, thy name is Diogenes.
:D

[DSYoungEsq]

Amazing. Does it again.

[Bearflag70]

Hope the Vikes give up the #2 seed to Dallas!

[Airman Doors, USAF]

...and the fellating of Brett Favre continues. All that's left is for Tirico to tell everybody how Purple Jesus is just like a kid out there, jes' chuckin' the ball like the ol' gunslinger he is.

[Omniscient]

God I hate Lovie Smith with every shred of my being.

[dalej42]

If the Vikings implode and end up one and done in the playoffs, are we going to be stuck with an entire summer of Favre retirement drama again? Please, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DSYoungEsq]

Well, Bears had the chance.

[UncleNito]

Damn, some of us have to work tomorrow.

[Little Nemo]

Is this a serious question/argument? Manning played in the first 13 games because the Colts had not yet locked up the first seed. Now that they have locked up the first seed, winning more games will not do them any good.

The Colts have made it very clear that their only goals are to win their divison and the Super Bowl. Playing Manning in the final three games does nothing to help achieve the first goal, and the Colts believe (arguably wrongly) that it doesn't help them achieve the second either.You missed the main point of my post. I pointed out there are a number of ways to decide whether a team is succeeding or failing.

[Omniscient]

Call should stand. Thank you AD.

[DSYoungEsq]

Wow, Peterson gives up the rock. Bears will have another chance to win it...

And it's over. :D

[Gangster Octopus]

If the Pack had beat the Steelers and the Niners beat the Vikes then GB would be leading the NFC North. Two last minute passes.

Oh well,.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

If the Pack had beat the Steelers and the Niners beat the Vikes then GB would be leading the NFC North. Two last minute passes.

Oh well,.

...and if the Steelers had just scored 28 more points this year (the total number of points they lost all seven games by, believe it or not) they might be undefeated.

It happens sometimes.

[Gangster Octopus]

...and if the Steelers had just scored 28 more points this year (the total number of points they lost all seven games by, believe it or not) they might be undefeated.

It happens sometimes.

Yep, not complaining, just having an existential moment.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

...and the fellating of Brett Favre continues. All that's left is for Tirico to tell everybody how Purple Jesus is just like a kid out there, jes' chuckin' the ball like the ol' gunslinger he is.

You forgot "playing in a sandlot while wearing Wrangler jeans...just like the regular guys!"...

...Purple Jesus...LOL...sounds like the drink that Michael Jackson used to seduce Corey Haim...

[SenorBeef]

The term actually refers to Peterson, not Favre, as far as I know.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

The term actually refers to Peterson, not Favre, as far as I know.

My understanding is that they are interchangeable, depending on who's doing the fumbling/interceptions. But make no mistake...they both wear Wrangler jeans. In fact, so does the entire coaching staff. You think Childress and Favre have an actual football-related issue? No!

Favre's contract stipulates that everyone around him must not only coddle and fawn over His Holiness, but also wear his advertised apparel. Childress got really tired of the raspy Brokeback Mountain feel of Wranglers on his dry white ass and said something to Brett. Thus the "controversy".

[Kid_A]

If the games break a specific way next weekend, these could be the 4 wild card games:

Steelers at Patriots
Ravens at Bengals
Packers at Vikings
Cowboys at Cardinals (definitely the black sheep of this family)

Now that's a ratings bonanza.

[Ellis Dee]

My understanding is that they are interchangeable, depending on who's doing the fumbling/interceptions.Adrian Peterson was coined "Purple Jesus" long before Favre showed up. It may have even been before Favre was a Jet. As far as I'm aware, they are no more interchangeable than you can call Jim McMahon "Sweetness."

[borschevsky]

The NFL bylaws aren't available publicly anywhere, are they? I've seen a few references to a bylaw that teams are required to try to win games that can have an impact on the standings (TMQ mentioned it in passing today). I'd be interested to see the actual text.

[Speak to me Maddie!]

The Colts throwing the game had significant playoff implications due to all the teams bunched up around 7-7. How would you like it if your team only got in because someone got to play against the next Jim Sorgi, or if you get kicked out because someone got a free win? Disgusting.

Fuck that franchise.
Indeed. I'm a Texans fan. And the Colts have found a way to screw us even when we aren't playing them. The one game of the year I actually want the Colts to win and they throw it, elevating the Jets to a position ahead of my team for the Wild Card race. The reason this is unsporting is sound. My team is down a spot because a different team decided to lose on purpose. Why couldn't the Colts have thrown one of the two games they played against the Texans? They were a sure thing for the playoffs by the second meeting. Deciding to just give up affects more than just the teams playing that game. I can't see anyway to prevent it happening, but it should at the very least be viewed as dishonorable and unsporting.

You already mentioned the upside. This sort of behavior tends to backfire, especially with the Colts. I can't wait to watch yet another playoff choke by a team to scared to play to win. And it will happen at home in front of the fans. I will savor the staduim silence at the end of that game. For an added bit of irony, I hope it is the Jets that do it.

[Indyellen]

I'm a very cranky Colts fan, and think that the decision was made way over Caldwell's head - I think it was Polian & Irsay. The players were NOT amused at all. Manning talks the party line, but you could see his disappointment all over his face.

However, I'm only posting to share a local news story that I think brings up some interesting other points: Ex-Lawmaker Wants Refund For Frustrated Colts Fans (http://www.theindychannel.com/sports/22082893/detail.html).

But yes, I hadn't thought about what it does to the Wild Card standings battle - so it sucks not just for Colts fans, but for the teams scrapping it out.

What a boneheaded decision. :rolleyes:

[Gangster Octopus]

IWhile I doo not agree with the Colts decision, it is a bit of a stretch to say they lost on purpose.

[Omniscient]

I'm a Bears fan but the Colts are the next nearest NFL team to Chicago and as an AFC squad they aren't really a rival. Chicago has a ton of Indy transplants and I have a ton of friends who are Colts fans. I've always liked and respected Manning and always sided with him in the Brady vs. Manning debates. In short, the Colts were a team I found myself cheering for quite often and one of the AFC powers that I most liked. After this horseshit decision, never again. I will from this day forward always root against them and deride any Indy fan I come across. I had absolutely nothing at stake in this game yet it offended me and disgusted me. What a pathetic franchise and I hope the football gods extract vengeance on them. If Manning gets Kimo-ed in the Playoffs I won't be shedding any tears.

[borschevsky]

Maybe a bit of a stretch, but not much. They certainly didn't put forth their best effort to win.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if, in some interview 10 years from now, Manning will say that his biggest regret from his career is not playing for 16-0.

[Omniscient]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if, in some interview 10 years from now, Manning will say that his biggest regret from his career is not playing for 16-0.

I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case. Hell, I bet Caldwell and Polian say the same things. Heck, I bet Manning fires a couple barbs this offseason.

[Ellis Dee]

I had absolutely nothing at stake in this game yet it offended me and disgusted me.Peyton lost me after that playoff loss to the Patriots several years back, when he whined about PI so much that the league made PI beyond 5 yards a "point of emphasis," effectively legislating shutdown corners out of the game*. Such a whiny little pussy.

Then my favorite team acquired his little brother, so karma is a bitch. I still hate Peyton, though. I'm surprised to see people hating on the Colts because of last Sunday. They've been doing this for years, and SenorBeef's description (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11929342&postcount=66) of what they did in 2007 is both accurate (to my memory) and far more offensive. Like, a million times more offensive. What they did this past Sunday was honorable by comparison.

*I've been thrilled to see Darrell Revis actually become a shutdown corner in this post-Peyton era where you aren't allowed to breathe on receivers.

[Oakminster]

Sigh. Brian McCray got arrested for DUI and several traffic offenses early this morning.

Link (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AvpO2eFNdWyKO8Nzly3bWbs5nYcB?slug=ap-saints-dwi&prov=ap&type=lgns)

I've bled Black & Gold for 40 years. Love my Saints. But damn if they're not doing everything they can to screw up the best season they've ever had.

Let the record reflect Oak is displeased.

[Omniscient]

Peyton lost me after that playoff loss to the Patriots several years back, when he whined about PI so much that the league made PI beyond 5 yards a "point of emphasis," effectively legislating shutdown corners out of the game*. Such a whiny little pussy.

Eh, that doesn't worry me so much. It's like in the NBA where they cracked down on hand checking and hard fouls. It was creating an un-entertaining style of play, Manning wasn't the first to criticize it but he was the most visible. All in all I think the rule was an improvement and makes guys like Revis all the more important. Frankly I don't think the rules were changed, I think they simply were put back to where they were in the 80s. The contact heavy style was the anomaly, not the current one.

Then my favorite team acquired his little brother, so karma is a bitch. I still hate Peyton, though. I'm surprised to see people hating on the Colts because of last Sunday. They've been doing this for years, and SenorBeef's description (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11929342&postcount=66) of what they did in 2007 is both accurate (to my memory) and far more offensive. Like, a million times more offensive. What they did this past Sunday was honorable by comparison.

I didn't really remember 2007, but that sucks pretty bad too. I'm not ready to say that teams should never rest starters but I think screwing over your own players and your own fans is a bigger crime than screwing over another team in the playoff race. I'm cool with self-interest, but you have an obligation to the fans to achieve something like 16-0.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Bobby McCray. And he's not exactly going to be missed - he wasn't good enough for the pass-rush-needy Jaguars to keep him.

[Oakminster]

Bobby McCray. And he's not exactly going to be missed - he wasn't good enough for the pass-rush-needy Jaguars to keep him.

Bah. I knew that. Brain fart.

Disagree about him being missed, though. Saints are getting thin on defense, and can't afford to lose anybody to stupidity. That said, if the team suspends him or cuts him, I won't complain. He sure didn't have anything to celebrate after Sunday's disaster, and if he was going to drink, he should have called a cab.

[Really Not All That Bright]

If I lost to the Buccaneers I'd want to get wasted too.

Go Bucs! :)