Obnoxious Football Trash Talk Thread

[Cape Brewing]

He took the game out of the players hands by asking the offense to get two yards!?!?!

Really???

i think you guys are so anti-Pats and anti-Belichick your brains are rotting out.

 

[shecky]

Agreed, a silly thing to say. However, babalu got it right. The defense only suspected it sucks before last night. Now it knows full well that it sucks out loud.

 

[dataz722]

I am just amazed that they didn't come up with some new rule that just automatically gave them the 2 yards.

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

I am just amazed that they didn't come up with some new rule that just automatically gave them the 2 yards.

HAHAhaha HAHA! That's great. I can just see Brady turning to the ump and giving him a look like "you know what you have to do" and the ump goes over and moves the ball forward a couple of feet.

 

[babalu87]

God DAMN what a STUPID FVCKING CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Statistics tell me you give the ball to Peyton Manning on the 30 yard line and he scores every fvcking time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GD what an arrogant SOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

I am just amazed that they didn't come up with some new rule that just automatically gave them the 2 yards.

I think they actually did get two yards but got a terrible spot. But since they had just used up their last timeout they couldn't challenge. I'm pretty sure they would have gotten a better spot if they challenge but just not sure if it would have been enough for a first down...it looked VERY close to me (Faulk does bobble it once but very quickly secures it). That wasted timeout at the very beginning of the series ended up costing them imo (Pats used their last TWO timeouts on that short series).

I also didn't see it as arrogance...more like fear...of Peyton Manning. I'm pretty sure Belichick punts the ball to just about any other QB in the league.

How bout them Bengals? Whoda thunkit.

 

[the_bird]

Really good article on Yahoo! today. Money section:

Consider Brian Burke of AdvancedNFLStats.com. As Burke wrote for the New York Times:

“With 2:08 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful 4th-and-2 conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A conversion on 4th-and-2 would be successful 60 percent of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53 percent of the time from that field position. The total win probability for the 4th-down conversion attempt would therefore be:

“(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP (WP stands for win probability)“

A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their 34. Teams historically get the TD 30 percent of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP.”

You don’t need to know much math to know 79 percent is a greater likely win percentage than 70 percent.

Personally, I’m not completely convinced of probability conversions when it comes to a game with as many variables as football. The Colts defense is not the average defense. This isn’t playing against St. Louis in the second quarter. Crowd noise matters. And so on.

Then again, Peyton Manning(notes) isn’t the average quarterback – either at his own 30 or the Patriots’ 30. Of course, neither is a pass from Tom Brady(notes) to Kevin Faulk, two clutch, veteran players.

Still, it ought to count for something that all of the probability formulas go in Belichick’s favor. The majority of people issuing blistering attacks can cite the assumed probability that punting was the best option. That can’t be deemed more accurate than actual probability even if you don’t believe fully in the math.

There are few things worse in sports than when conventional wisdom of how something should be done (because that’s how it’s always been done) sends a chilling effect for innovation and ingenuity.

There are few black-and-white decisions in the course of a football game. One may be better than the other, but it’s never 100 percent to zero percent. Belichick didn’t make a good choice or a bad choice, he made his own choice.

Having a coach think for himself based on great insight (statistical or otherwise) should never be called a bad move.

I haven't been able to watch the replay closely, hell, I haven't been able to watch SportCenter since Sunday, but it also does make not of Faulk not *really* juggling the ball and the ref not being in a position to see that. It's a pisser, especially since the Pats had run out of timeouts and couldn't challenge. **** it, that's how the game goes.

In any case, it's just nice to see that someone who's smarter at the math than I am agrees with what I thought even before they ran the play - going for the conversion was a good decision. The math for all situations works, and when you consider that it was a play for Brady/Faulk against the Colts' D, AND that you'd be giving the ball back to Peyton, I think he makes that same decision again.

 

[dataz722]

Im calling bull**** on that math. There are tons more variables that need to be considered.

 

[Dwain]

I watched MNF last night. Baltimore won, but their offense sucked. I am by no means a fan of either team. However, if Manning or Brady would've got knocked around the way Flacco and Quinn did, Goodell would be handing out 250K fines this morning. You don't "earn" the right to be protected by the rule. As far as "the call", NE's offense is much better than the "D". While I think Bellychick is an arrogant prick, I don't have a problem with it. In today's game, all of the rules are slanted to help offenses make points. I would have went for more yards, that way when the corner back (or safety, I don't remember which) invariably touched the receiver he would have been out of the hand check zone and more than likely gotten a penalty if he didn't catch the ball.

 

[Dwain]

I haven't been able to watch the replay closely, hell, I haven't been able to watch SportCenter since Sunday, but it also does make not of Faulk not *really* juggling the ball and the ref not being in a position to see that. It's a pisser, especially since the Pats had run out of timeouts and couldn't challenge.

He definitly juggled the ball for a split second. The Referee was in a perfect position. They were out of challenges because of poor clock management. Having said all of that, you could argue the spot.

 

[babalu87]

Convoluted math build you a rocket ship and gets you to the Moon

M O O N that spells Moon

OK, for those that agree with going for it on 4th and 2
Where is the line of demarcation?

Would you go for it on the 20?
The 12 yard line?

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

IMO, you really have to use two camera angles to see where the spot should have been. In one camera angle you can see the ball clearly but have a terrible angle to judge the exact spot...but in another camera angle you can judge the spot but can't see the ball. Faulk had secured the ball by the time his left leg hit the ground and the ball was right on the 30 yard line. It looked extremely close to me.

I had seen that math breakdown prior to posting itt yesterday. It makes some assumptions that I don't think hold true. While I do think it was closer than it at first appears I still think going for it on 4th-and-2 from your own 28 when you're up 6 is a bad decision. People make it seem like Manning was on fire and was unstoppable. Up to that point in the game the Colts had had 13 possesions...9 of which ended up in either a punt or a turnover. 9 failures...4 successes. Peyton had 1 TD and 2 picks up to that point in the game.

 

[the_bird]

Im calling bull**** on that math. There are tons more variables that need to be considered.

The math is the math. All of the other variables just magnify the "correctness" of the decision. The math is all based on what has happened in those situations historically - the average outcome.

Does a Brady-Faulk hookup have a better-than-average (better than a typical QB/receiver) chance of converting the first down? Yes.

Is the Colt's defense better than average, or worse. Worse.

Is the Pat's defense, especially at that point of the game, in a position to stop the Colts? No.

If Peyton gets the ball back, is he more likely than average to score? Yes, whether he gets it at the 30 (in which case it's probably a 90% chance of TD) or at his own 30 (it's still well above a 50% chance he gets the TD in that situation).

Net result of the "other" effects points, IMHO, to it being a good decision. The ball goes back to the Colts, they're getting in the end zone regardless of where they start - so do what you can so they don't get the ball!

 

[the_bird]

Convoluted math build you a rocket ship and gets you to the Moon

M O O N that spells Moon

OK, for those that agree with going for it on 4th and 2
Where is the line of demarcation?

Would you go for it on the 20?
The 12 yard line?

Anywhere on the field where we can't pin them inside their 10 yard line with a punt. If we're on our own twelve, go for it - you punt it, Manning's getting the ball back at midfield. Does it really matter, with how the Colts offense and the Pats' D was playing, if he starts at the 12 or at the 50?

Hell, I half-expected BB to concede the TD, so that we'd get the ball back with 50 seconds or so to go and have a chance for a real last drive (we'd only have needed a FG).

 

[eriktlupus]

wow thats an awful lot of brain matter spent trying to justify a decision that turned out wrong. of course we wouldn't be having this discussion if faulk had ran that route another yard would we?

 

[babalu87]

Should have had Brady run into the endzone and take the safety, that would have eaten about 40 seconds.

 

[the_bird]

Meh, rule #1 of any gamble is that you aren't going to get the desired outcome every time. The point is to put the odds in your favor, which I'll argue going for it in this situation did. The fact that either Faulk didn't catch the ball 100% clean (causing the ref to make a bad call) is just the nature of the game, you don't win every hand. The route was good, you don't run that route any further than you need to so that the defense can't be in a position to stop it.

 

[eriktlupus]

so now your saying that the ref is at fault for not making a call that goes for the pats? sheese they spent the whole game ignoring holding by the pats oline what more do you guys need?

he obviosly bobbled the ball and when he finally had possesion and 2feet down he was short of the 1st down line. my whole point was that if he'd ran that route another yard hed have had the yardage for the 1st. as it was he only was barely over the line when he first touched the ball.

 

[the_bird]

I'm not blaming the refs - I'll leave that for the Ravens fans. Where they screwed up is in not having any timeouts left to challenge the call. When I'm looking at the replay, when Faulk gains clean possession of the ball, the ball's still over the first-down marker. He had the ball caight cleanly long before he hit the ground.

So, Faulk screwed up by not making a clean catch, if he had the refs would of course have given him forward progress. Not blaming the ref, he couldn't see exactly when Faulk DID have possession, but that **** happens. Pats ****ed up by not being able to challenge. Faulk's route was good, but he ****ed up by not catching it cleanly. It's a good play call, it's a quick, simple play that 99 times out of 100 nets at least two or three yards - just happens that this was the 1/100.

By the way - if the refs are in the Pats' jockstrap, why DIDN'T they just give him forward progress on that call?

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

The math is the math. All of the other variables just magnify the "correctness" of the decision. The math is all based on what has happened in those situations historically - the average outcome.

Does a Brady-Faulk hookup have a better-than-average (better than a typical QB/receiver) chance of converting the first down? Yes. Agree.

Is the Colt's defense better than average, or worse. Worse. Agree.

Is the Pat's defense, especially at that point of the game, in a position to stop the Colts? No. Totally disagree.

If Peyton gets the ball back, is he more likely than average to score? Yes, whether he gets it at the 30 (in which case it's probably a 90% chance of TD) or at his own 30 (it's still well above a 50% chance he gets the TD in that situation). Totally disagree.

Net result of the "other" effects points, IMHO, to it being a good decision. The ball goes back to the Colts, they're getting in the end zone regardless of where they start - so do what you can so they don't get the ball!

But the math is based on assumptions. If those assumptions are not valid then the math isn't right. Like I said above, up to that point the Colts had 13 possesions, 9 of which were failures. And imo you can't use the stats for all the other 4th-and-two conversions as a baseline here...this is a unique situation because the Colts can stack the line and play purely for 2 yards...zero long threat. And keep in mind...the 3rd down play JUST BEFORE THIS ONE was 3rd-and-two...and was almost intercepted for a TD. So if they couldn't convert it on 3rd-and-two why would anyone think it's way over 50% to convert on 4th-and-two?

 

[the_bird]

The majority of the "failed" Colts' drives were early in the game and almost irrelevant in this situation. The possessions immediately preceding the last drive, they were doing anything they wanted.

Let me be clear - I liked the decision to go for it because my confidence in the Pats' D is essentially nil. There is no doubt in my mind that wherever Peyton got the ball back, on the Pats' 30 or on his own 20 yard line, they were going down the field and scoring. The Pats' D was done. I feel much better trusting the game to the offense and two of my most trusted players than to a defense that was t-o-a-s-t.

 

[olllllo]

The flaw in the math is that it treats the Colts possessions as a singular event when in fact it is a series of events that would give the Patriots opportunities for turnovers or sacks or negative yardage.

 

[Cape Brewing]

blah blah blah... it is over, they lost. They're still making the playoffs no problem and int he standings and on the score board, they lost by one point, on the road, to one of the two best teams in the league (according to all of the pundits).

Was it a great call? Probably not... but it was no where near the apocyliptic, insane, moronic call that people are all lubed up about. "OH MY GOD!! Something I have jump all over the Patriots about!!! Let me get my lube for this!!!!"

As I was saying before... the Pats couldn't f'in kick a field goal in the fourth and the D was spent and couldn't stop the Colts. THAT'S why they lost... not because Belichick tried to win the game on a gamble that was no where near as risky as all of the haters are trying to make it out to be.

... Jets this weekend. In the words of future Hall of Fame Coach Bill Belichick, "We're focused on the Jets. The Colts game is over and now we have to focus on this Jets this week".

 

[babalu87]

blah blah blah... it is over, they lost. They're still making the playoffs no problem and int he standings and on the score board, they lost by one point, on the road, to one of the two best teams in the league (according to all of the pundits).

Maybe if you want to simplify it

BUT

It was another EPIC 4th quarter MELTDOWN against the Colts in a HUGE GAME

HUGE!

Bull
SHYTE on the gambling/odds arguement.
Why didnt they gamble all game long on 4th down then?

 

[Cape Brewing]

I just don't think the team is focused on it as much as the fans are.

Do you honestly think that the players are somehow not going to try as hard against the Jets or that the team has now lost confidence in Belichick??

What material effect is the meltdown going to have other than they lost on the road to the Colts?

 

[firerat]

What a weekend for my 'Phins!!

While we barely beat one of the crappiest teams in the league, the Bucs, we still squeaked a W and thats what matters.

What also makes me smile is the fact that Bills, the Pats, and most importantly to any Dol-phan, the Jets (suck, suck, suck lol ) all lost.

We don't often have weeks like this so I will bask in the beauty of it until Thursday night when we play the Panthers. Hopefully Ronnie Brown's ankle will be healed by then.

 

[babalu87]

What a weekend for my 'Phins!!

While we barely beat one of the crappiest teams in the league, the Bucs, we still squeaked a W and thats what matters.

What also makes me smile is the fact that Bills, the Pats, and most importantly to any Dol-phan, the Jets (suck, suck, suck lol ) all lost.

We don't often have weeks like this so I will bask in the beauty of it until Thursday night when we play the Panthers. Hopefully Ronnie Brown's ankle will be healed by then.

Ronnie Brown is OUT FOR THE YEAR

BANK ON IT

 

[firerat]

Ronnie Brown is OUT FOR THE YEAR

BANK ON IT

He's currently seeing a specialist and considering his history your probably right.

 

[firerat]

Booyah!! 5-5 bitches!! :rockin:

Bring on Buffalo!! :fro:

 

[andysim]

The math is the math. All of the other variables just magnify the "correctness" of the decision. The math is all based on what has happened in those situations historically - the average outcome.

Does a Brady-Faulk hookup have a better-than-average (better than a typical QB/receiver) chance of converting the first down? Yes.

Is the Colt's defense better than average, or worse. Worse.
Is the Pat's defense, especially at that point of the game, in a position to stop the Colts? No.

If Peyton gets the ball back, is he more likely than average to score? Yes, whether he gets it at the 30 (in which case it's probably a 90% chance of TD) or at his own 30 (it's still well above a 50% chance he gets the TD in that situation).

Net result of the "other" effects points, IMHO, to it being a good decision. The ball goes back to the Colts, they're getting in the end zone regardless of where they start - so do what you can so they don't get the ball!

I have to strongly disagree with your statement saying the Colts defense is worse then average. They have allowed the fewest points in the league.

I would have asked the same question you asked about the Pat's defense and came up with the same answer that at that point of the game, they couldn't stop the Pat's offense.

IMHO, the play failed for a combination of reasons.

1. The pass was behind the receiver a little, giving him no chance to turn up field.

2. The receiver bobbled the pass.

3. I'm not sure running a three yard route to gain two yards is a good idea. It leaves no margin for error.

4. The defense was all over the play.

5. The spot of the ball was iffy at best.

6. The Pats had no time outs to challenge the spot.

If one of the above six is different, Pats probably win.

 

[firerat]

There's that word again. "IF"

 

[Cape Brewing]

How are we still debating this?

Manning pulled off another insane comeback... simple as that. The guys good... in the regular season. As much as my mouth fills up with bile to say that, it's true. He'll go down as one of, if not THE, best (regular season) QBs in the history of the game and he'll pulled another great (regular season) comeback.

The Pats D didn't have the depth to stay fresh and they wilted at the end... that's that's taking away anything from the Colts. They played well and they won.

the f'in call was about reason forty six why the Pats lost that game.... it just happened to be by far and away the most newsworthy.

 

[Homercidal]

I'll bet you an IPA that the Browns finish better than the Cryn' Lyons.:fro:

Just wanted to mention that I prefer Cascade in my IPA...

 

[Hugh_Jass]

Just wanted to mention that I prefer Cascade in my IPA...

I hear ya, Homer. I'm brewing one next week with Cent/Cascade. Maybe a bit of saliva in the bottles for good measure.:cross:

You know, it was an exciting game considering both teams really blow. Stafford was impressive. Especially the last pass. You won the game and we won draft position.

 

[Lil' Sparky]

Anyone catch that beatdown the Cowboys gave the Redskins yesterday?

I'd rather not win like that, but losses like that are even worse (like last week), so we'll take the win and pretend it looked a lot better. Yeah, that's it, we looked great kicking the crap out of the skins - that scab of an NFC East team!

Hopefully the explosive, exciting, high-scoring Cowboys will show back up on Turkey Day!

 

[dontman]

Was anyone else totally disappointed with the caliber of football played yesterday? That Dallas game was so boring it reminded me of a soccer game.

Sarcasm Alert! And that Eagles game was just a prime example of both team's talent being finely honed and brought to bear in a tour de force performance. Sheesh.

 

[dunnright00]

How 'bout them 1st place Chargers?!?!

 

[shecky]

The level of play in the NFL this year is the worst it has been in recent memory. Just awful. There are a ton of really bad teams.

It says something when the two worst teams played probably the best game of the day yesterday.

 

[olllllo]

Was anyone else totally disappointed with the caliber of football played yesterday? That Dallas game was so boring it reminded me of a soccer game.

Sarcasm Alert! And that Eagles game was just a prime example of both team's talent being finely honed and brought to bear in a tour de force performance. Sheesh.

I preferred the 1988 version of the Eagles - Bears game. It was far more watchable.

I like the outcome this year's game.

 

[Homercidal]

I hear ya, Homer. I'm brewing one next week with Cent/Cascade. Maybe a bit of saliva in the bottles for good measure.:cross:

You know, it was an exciting game considering both teams really blow. Stafford was impressive. Especially the last pass. You won the game and we won draft position.

What sucks is that I didn't even have it on. We went away for a bit and I thought, "Oh, well, I won't have the kids record it because they are going to lose anyway..."

Wish I'd have recorded it now. What a finish!

I fully expect it to be the last win of the year for us, but a loss to the Browns would have been disappointing (because I really want some IPA...)