CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   World of Sport (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   The NFL thread (https://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=137231)

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 10-10-2011 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveyHawking
Pats tinted glasses much?! Shock horror! The Pats are a very good team especially on offense but you can't tell me that Brady et al don't get favourable calls from officials. No different from Manning at Indy in seasons past. Thing that annoys the most is they don't need any extra help as they are good enough to get things done on their own.

Oh, and I've never gone along with the Eagles being the 'dream team' - that was a throwaway line by a newly signed dumb backup QB and the media jumped all over it. Least you're not being childish with the "my team is better than yours" line. :clown: I believe I even said as our game started that I'd be happy with an 8-8 season so I don't really see what the 3 wins and 3 rings line is about. Closest we came to winning was deservedly losing to your lot in 2005 and we've not looked likely to do so since.

Not that they deserved it Stevey ........ what with the videos and all :vader: :moo:

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 10-10-2011 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
All QB's get favourable calls, that's the way the league works.

Sometimes they get calls, sometimes they don't. Just look at the Chargers-Pats game. 2 late, low hits that took out Brady's knee.

As for bringing up Spygate, no mention of the Jets being caught doing it the year before? Or Jimmy Johnson, Bill Parcells and Bill Walsh having admitted to doing the same?

Maybe teams should've been smarter, the rule was changed to only being able to take pictures and print them during the game instead of video after the game. And as the Pats weren't using the videos until future games, maybe the coaches should've been changing their signals since it was so OBVIOUS to the teams that it was happening.

What would stop me sitting behind the Jets bench and using my iPhone to take the pictures that are 1 after the other of the Jets signals and then match them to the plays after the game? And then leaving the pictures next to Belichick's car?

Paul, I don't think Stevey brought up spygate? :confused: In fact he said you deservedly won in 05 ................. It was Ben who brought it up and i am more than happy to bring it up as well :moo:

Beckenham Boy 10-10-2011 12:46 PM

Wow watch the end of the Chargers Broncos game - now that was an exciting finish!!!

peagle 10-10-2011 01:27 PM

To be fair, two of the penalties on third down were very marginal. The contact on Hernandez's long pass was minimal and I don't think it was a catchable ball either. Also going back a couple of weeks and looking at the pass interference call we had given against us which was then overturned as it was argued they just got tangled up, it seems harsh that we received one for seemingly a very similar situation on I think Welker.

However, while I think we got lucky with penalties this week, I wouldn't say in general that we were any more favoured than another team.

HAving watched the Eagles game, I can't decide whethe or not to be scared of the Bills. They do have a knack for taking the ball away which is useful, but if that dries up, which it can for no reason, I think teams will move the ball on them ok. Their offence looked good against Phillie but they are a solid running team playing a poor run D so that wasn't surprising.

Benzhiyi 10-10-2011 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauldrulez
Every team gets the decisions... you only see it because the Pats are on TV so often. Or the Colts. Or the Steelers.

And would you like a FACT.

From the beginning of 2010 until week 4, the bottom 7 QB's in terms of Roughing the Passer penalties received are (in no particular order):
Tony Romo, Matt Schaub, Kevin Kolb, Joe Flacco, David Garrard AND Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

And that is by percentage, not by amount of snaps. So 1 in 50 passes = 4 in 200 passes.

I'd like to thank Mike Pereira for that stat.

For the Eagles fans, Mike Vick is top 10 in receiving Roughing the Passer penalties and Jason Campbell is #1.

I like the way that you're so keen to prove a point you completely ignore the fact that your offensive line (which I'll openly state is the best in football) often prevents the opposition getting anywhere near Brady.

Ditto the Colts o-line/Manning before this season.

You can't rough the passer if you can't get near the passer.

Ergo, that stat means piss all.

But keep seeing what you want to see.

Only surprised that Saxon, who usually takes a far more balanced view of all things Pats and, more pertinently, has been there for the good times and the bad, seems to be in agreement with you. Guess he kept his Bill-branded specs with him while travelling.

pauldrulez 10-10-2011 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peagle
To be fair, two of the penalties on third down were very marginal. The contact on Hernandez's long pass was minimal and I don't think it was a catchable ball either. Also going back a couple of weeks and looking at the pass interference call we had given against us which was then overturned as it was argued they just got tangled up, it seems harsh that we received one for seemingly a very similar situation on I think Welker.

However, while I think we got lucky with penalties this week, I wouldn't say in general that we were any more favoured than another team.

HAving watched the Eagles game, I can't decide whethe or not to be scared of the Bills. They do have a knack for taking the ball away which is useful, but if that dries up, which it can for no reason, I think teams will move the ball on them ok. Their offence looked good against Phillie but they are a solid running team playing a poor run D so that wasn't surprising.

This.

We have our fair share for us, and our fair share against us.

Maybe the refereeing standards need to be improved.

I'm sure the Tuck Rule will be brought up vs the Raiders. But 25 years earlier, there was a roughing the passer call and multiple other calls in an AFC Championship game between the 2.

You can bring up whatever, but there's always a comeback. 2006 playoffs, Ellis Hobbs called for faceguarding. Check the rulebook, no such penalty. 2007 Superbowl, Manning hits the miracle pass. But look around him and you'll see Seymour and Green being held.

I'm not saying the Pats don't get a fair share, but it works both ways in most cases.

I.E The ticky-tack penalty last week. Then in the Bills game, there's a 50yd D pass int penalty, when the WR who was nowhere near the ball, went to come back for it and grabbed hold of the Safety to pull him down.

Every team gets their fair share, but Brady and Manning get the insults due to their big hits being shown on Sportscenter. If Ray Lewis creams Brady, it'll be shown. If Ray Lewis creams Tarvaris Jackson, it depends how many other highlights there are to show!

Hedgehog 10-10-2011 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim
Is there any serious talk out there of LA taking the Rams back? It keeps coming up on the St Louis forums & they are really stinking up the Lou!

The only talk I hear is of getting an expansion team.

I've not heard the Rams rumor.

pauldrulez 10-10-2011 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hedgehog
The only talk I hear is of getting an expansion team.

I've not heard the Rams rumor.

LA Chargers, Vikings or Jaguars were what I heard.

TBH, We're more likely to see LA Chargers followed by London Jaguars

Funk Butter 10-10-2011 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hedgehog
The only talk I hear is of getting an expansion team.

I've not heard the Rams rumor.

Going to 33 teams would give headaches to the NFL as far as scheduling. It was bad enough when they had 31 teams for a couple of years. I could somehow see going to 36 teams, though, if nobody relocated. Put 2 teams in LA, one in London and one somewhere else in the US. Portland, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, or San Antonio seem the most likely.

peagle 10-10-2011 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funk Butter
Going to 33 teams would give headaches to the NFL as far as scheduling. It was bad enough when they had 31 teams for a couple of years. I could somehow see going to 36 teams, though, if nobody relocated. Put 2 teams in LA, one in London and one somewhere else in the US. Portland, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, or San Antonio seem the most likely.

Any new system would cause major headaches for the NFL as it would unbalance the system. The only fair way to do it really would be to add 8 new teams and have divisions of 5... not going to happen. Otherwise how would you rearrange it?

Funk Butter 10-10-2011 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peagle
Any new system would cause major headaches for the NFL as it would unbalance the system. The only fair way to do it really would be to add 8 new teams and have divisions of 5... not going to happen. Otherwise how would you rearrange it?

Yeah, 8 would be best, then 4 then 2 then 1 would be the absolute worst. I just love the synergy (is that the right word) of the current system. You play your division opponents home and away. You play all 4 teams of a division in the opposing conference and your own conference. Then you play against the other teams in your conference that finished in the same position as you. So I'm able to know all but 2 teams the Falcons would play in 2043.

If you think that trying to schedule a 33-team league is hard. Try to schedule this 13-team SEC. I think whoever can figure it out gets a Nobel Prize.

BLUE BOY 10-10-2011 04:01 PM

Great win by the Seahawks, think that rules them out of the race for Andrew Luck!

peagle 10-10-2011 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funk Butter
Yeah, 8 would be best, then 4 then 2 then 1 would be the absolute worst. I just love the synergy (is that the right word) of the current system. You play your division opponents home and away. You play all 4 teams of a division in the opposing conference and your own conference. Then you play against the other teams in your conference that finished in the same position as you. So I'm able to know all but 2 teams the Falcons would play in 2043.

If you think that trying to schedule a 33-team league is hard. Try to schedule this 13-team SEC. I think whoever can figure it out gets a Nobel Prize.

If you add anything other than 8 you may have to change the whole system, by which i mean the division system would likely have to be scrapped or changed. I agree with you that I like the system as it is.

Edenbridge Eagle In Exile 10-10-2011 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUE BOY
Great win by the Seahawks, think that rules them out of the race for Andrew Luck!

Hey keep you hands off .................... he's ours!!! SUCK FOR LUCK Andy SUCK FOR LUCK!!!!! :moo: :vader:

BLUE BOY 10-10-2011 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edenbridge Eagle In Exile
Hey keep you hands off .................... he's ours!!! SUCK FOR LUCK Andy SUCK FOR LUCK!!!!! :moo: :vader:

You can have him..........M Barkley will take the Seahawks back to the promised land!:lux:

davematt 10-10-2011 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUE BOY
Great win by the Seahawks, think that rules them out of the race for Andrew Luck!

Who would have thought a couple of months ago that the team in the best position to draft Andrew Luck in April would be the Indianapolis Colts?

They are currently 0-5, and if they can't beat the Chiefs at home without Manning, they ain't beating anyone.

I am sure they are already talking about this in their back office. Lets say Peyton is fit to come in and play for the last few games, and they are sitting on a very possible 0-12 record (I look at their schedule, and MAYBE they sneak a win in week 10 at home to the Jags, but thats all I am giving them).

Do they risk bringing Peyton back to finish with a 4-12 season, and then miss out on drafting who would be his ready made replacement in the next couple of years? Can you imagine Andrew Luck coming into the NFL, and being 'tutored' for a year or two by one of the greatest QB's in the history of the NFL? Could be the perfect scenario for the Colts...

SteveyHawking 10-10-2011 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edenbridge Eagle In Exile
Hey keep you hands off .................... he's ours!!! SUCK FOR LUCK Andy SUCK FOR LUCK!!!!! :moo: :vader:

:D As it looks like our season is down the swanny I would quite like to get a decent first rounder for once. Matt Kalil or Jonathan Martin on the o-line would be most beneficial as we are still terrible there. Getting a nutter like Vontaze Burfict in at linebacker would be handy too. :)

SteveyHawking 10-10-2011 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davematt
Who would have thought a couple of months ago that the team in the best position to draft Andrew Luck in April would be the Indianapolis Colts?

They are currently 0-5, and if they can't beat the Chiefs at home without Manning, they ain't beating anyone.

I am sure they are already talking about this in their back office. Lets say Peyton is fit to come in and play for the last few games, and they are sitting on a very possible 0-12 record (I look at their schedule, and MAYBE they sneak a win in week 10 at home to the Jags, but thats all I am giving them).

Do they risk bringing Peyton back to finish with a 4-12 season, and then miss out on drafting who would be his ready made replacement in the next couple of years? Can you imagine Andrew Luck coming into the NFL, and being 'tutored' for a year or two by one of the greatest QB's in the history of the NFL? Could be the perfect scenario for the Colts...

I'm sure the Colts will do everything in their power to win the Luck Lotto! :D

Funk Butter 10-10-2011 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davematt
Who would have thought a couple of months ago that the team in the best position to draft Andrew Luck in April would be the Indianapolis Colts?

They are currently 0-5, and if they can't beat the Chiefs at home without Manning, they ain't beating anyone.

I am sure they are already talking about this in their back office. Lets say Peyton is fit to come in and play for the last few games, and they are sitting on a very possible 0-12 record (I look at their schedule, and MAYBE they sneak a win in week 10 at home to the Jags, but thats all I am giving them).

Do they risk bringing Peyton back to finish with a 4-12 season, and then miss out on drafting who would be his ready made replacement in the next couple of years? Can you imagine Andrew Luck coming into the NFL, and being 'tutored' for a year or two by one of the greatest QB's in the history of the NFL? Could be the perfect scenario for the Colts...

It's a similar situation to the San Antonio Spurs years ago. They lose David Robinson for the season and suck it up. The win the draft lottery and take Tim Duncan with the 1st pick. They then win 4 titles in the next 10 years.

If I were the Colts and got Luck, I would boot Manning and his fat contract and just go with Luck out of the box.

AddiscombeEagle 10-10-2011 06:43 PM

Haven't the colts got other needs away from QB?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.