N.f.l. 2012 (2 Viewers)

jazzeum said:
Look at the bright side Al. Maybe they will be able to draft a decent QB.

Brad
Click to expand...
The Redskins could make Sonny Jugensen an offer he couldn't refuse, but he would have to give up his Social Security check. He may be 77 years old, but at least he is a proven commodity. I don't know how long I'm willing to wait while a rookie Qb is broken in. :p -- Al
 
I'm sure the Skins (and many other teams) will look at Matt Flynn, the GB backup. He had a heck of a day and is not a flash in the pan; he had a good game against the Pats last year when Rogers was out with a concussion. He's a free agent.
 
jazzeum said:
Unless Romo is almost healthy, I don't see the Giants losing to the Cowboys, for all the reasons I've stated previously.

In the AFC, I also don't have any confidence in any of the teams playing for something today. However, I do see the Jets squeaking out a win, the Ravens losing, the Broncos losing, the Raiders winning and the Titans losing, which means, Pats will be the number one seed, Steelers number 2, Ravens number 5 and Bengals number 6. I like the Pats to win it in the AFC, giving truth to the words the best defense is a good offense.

In the NFC, I think Lions will be dangerous as I think they are a dome team that can win on the road. I think 49ers can win but again the best defense is a good offense particularly when the defense is not that good and it will be an offensive SB, Pats vs GB, with New England dreaming revenge.
Click to expand...

Brad, hope you weren't in any pool this week:smile2:...Sammy
 
Ravens AFC North Champs!! a division that has put 3 teams in the playoffs and we swept it, 12-4 back to back:smile2::smile2::smile2: I really don't care who we play at least we get a bye, rest, and then playoffs in Baltimore!!! hmmm...I do have 3 new weeks of vacation:smile2:...Sammy
 
Oakland choked it's chance so now the Broncos win the AFC West. Way to back in, on the strength of a 3 game losing streak. I don't see them around very long. Playoffs should be pretty good, lots of good teams to watch. Now I start my anybody but Green Bay or Dallas rooting regimen. Being an old Baltimore Colts fan and a current Redskins fan, my "distaste" for Green Bay goes deeper than any, though Dallas is a close second. In fact, the last time I rooted for Dallas, Dandy Don was their Qb, (in the 1966 and 1967 championship games). All I can say now is GO RAVENS and BEAT Green Bay. Oh yeah, go Giants! Sorry Mike, I don't care for the Giants, but the Cowboys... -- Al
 
sammy719 said:
Brad, hope you weren't in any pool this week:smile2:...Sammy
Click to expand...

No, it's all strictly for fun.

Next week in the AFC, it's Bengals at Houston and Steelers at Denver. The Steelers should win. The other game, not ready to make a pick.

Will wait on NFC until after tonight.
 
Well, I think we can lay Tebow time to rest. They backed into the playoffs with an 8-8 record, but will face the Steelers next weekend and go down in flames.

Cincinnati also backed in, and should lose to Houston. The Falcons and the Lions flip-flopped, so it is the Lions who will be sacrificial lambs to the Saints in New Orleans, and the Falcons who will play the winner of the Giants/Cowboys, a matchup which the Giants might win as the Falcons are not used to playing outside in bad weather.

I have my fingers crossed for tonight. I had very low expectations for the Giants this year, between the injuries, the unreplaced losses to free agency and the Eagles off-season acquisitions. I picked them to finish third in the NFC East at 7-9. If they can win tonight they will have dramatically exceeded my expectations, and anything they do in the playoffs would be gravy. On the other hand, if the lose to the Cowboys they basically had the season I expected with one more win. I guess I will jist have to keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
 
As much as I normally hate pass interference calls, the Bengals really got hosed on the second to last play against the Ravens. The Ravens defender pulled the receiver's jersey so hard to keep him from making the catch in the end zone that his shoulder pad came out of his jersey right in front of the official. Its funny how they call every ticky-tack foul, but miss a blatent pass interference in the endzone with 11 seconds left which would have set up an attempted two point conversion to tie the game. It doesn't make any difference to the Bengals, because they backed in anyway, but I bet the Steelers were pretty pissed.
 
One last thing - the whole parity concept has gotten ridiculous. The Broncos, Raiders and Chargers all ended up with 8-8 records, and the Chiefs went 7-9 in the AFC West, while the winner of the NFC East will go 9-7 and there will be two 8-8 teams right behind them. Two 9-7 and one 8-8 team are making the playoffs. Last year the Seahawks won the NFC West with a 7-9 record! I liked it a lot better when there were good teams and bad teams, not a bunch of mediocre teams.

Wouldn't it be nice if you had to win at least 10 games to make the playoffs, and any division without at least one 10+ win team just didn't get a respresentative in the playoffs, and in that case the team with the third-best record would join the top two teams in getting a bye? The Giants, the Bengals and the Broncos would all be sitting the playoffs out, but even though my team would be adversely effected, I would take that rule change in a heartbeat.
 
Louis Badolato said:
One last thing - the whole parity concept has gotten ridiculous. The Broncos, Raiders and Chargers all ended up with 8-8 records, and the Chiefs went 7-9 in the AFC West, while the winner of the NFC East will go 9-7 and there will be two 8-8 teams right behind them. Two 9-7 and one 8-8 team are making the playoffs. Last year the Seahawks won the NFC West with a 7-9 record! I liked it a lot better when there were good teams and bad teams, not a bunch of mediocre teams.

Wouldn't it be nice if you had to win at least 10 games to make the playoffs, and any division without at least one 10+ win team just didn't get a respresentative in the playoffs, and in that case the team with the third-best record would join the top two teams in getting a bye? The Giants, the Bengals and the Broncos would all be sitting the playoffs out, but even though my team would be adversely effected, I would take that rule change in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...


Give the man a cigar, couldn't agree more; the Broncos "win" the AFC West with a stellar 8-8 record, how pitiful, while the Bengals lose and back into the playoffs as well at 9-7, while in the AFC, the Giants/Cowboys "winner" get the division title at 9-7 and hosts a playoff game, again just pathetic.

And that thud you heard was Tebow falling back to earth, nice story and all but he is just God awful to watch as a QB, his throwing motion and the way he runs for his life back there are comical to watch.
 
From a traditionalist point of view, you may not like parity but it guarantees that you keep the fan's interest by ensuring that many teams have a chance to win. I don't want to see the same two or three teams dominating the league. It probably guarantees that we have competitive SBs, which until the last few years were very uncompetitive.

As far as penalizing a team for not winning 10 games, that's just silly. Will you give a team that wins 13 plus games a bonus? I doubt it. The goal in any sport is to win your division or to win the most games, not some artificial number. No matter how many you win, if you win one more than your opponent, that's the goal. Always has been, always will be.
 
Brady and the boys ALL THE WAY
They gave back Buffalo what Buffalo
gave them at the beginning
Down 21 then win
Anybody knows about more than 49 unanswered points
in prior games???
 
jazzeum said:
From a traditionalist point of view, you may not like parity but it guarantees that you keep the fan's interest by ensuring that many teams have a chance to win. I don't want to see the same two or three teams dominating the league. It probably guarantees that we have competitive SBs, which until the last few years were very uncompetitive.

As far as penalizing a team for not winning 10 games, that's just silly. Will you give a team that wins 13 plus games a bonus? I doubt it. The goal in any sport is to win your division or to win the most games, not some artificial number. No matter how many you win, if you win one more than your opponent, that's the goal. Always has been, always will be.
Click to expand...

No, I don't like parity, what pleasure do you get as a fan of sports watching a watered down product? I would rather see quality teams playing than the crap I see now; the four wild card games next week are shaping up as Lions at Saints, Falcons at Giants, Steelers at Broncos, Bengals at Texans, there is not a single game there that remotely interests me and this is the PLAYOFFS for God sakes, BORING, BORING, BORING...............three of those games are shaping up as blowouts; gee, what fun.
 
I disagree with records being the pertinent factor to validite a teams worthiness or belonging in the playoffs...

sure you need to win your spot...I'm not saying Indianapolis should be in the hunt...

but just because a team is not the division leader doesn't mean they are not a good team or it's going to be a boring game when they get on the field...

it's all about peaking...peaking at playoff time...not going flat...getting healthy and avoiding injuries at the right time of the season...

all teams struggle with injuries every year...that's the reason a lot of them have bad records now...injuries early in the season...

don't underestimate a wildcard team or the team with the lesser regular season record...

I don't think anybody would want to play Philly right now...they are very healthy for the first time all year...

as are the Giants...
 
Parity is no more than the bad teams getting better. I like seeing the Lions back in the playoffs after all these years and the Texans getting a chance. We're all tired of Tebow by now but the first round has some traditional powerhouses in there like the Saints and Steelers. It's a good combination of both. If the Giants get in, it will also be a good chance to see an exciting receiver like Victor Cruz, one of the most unrecognized players in the game.

Sorry, but I don't want to see the likes of the Steelers, Cowboys or Pats dominate all the time. In any event, the good teams will always get the recognition and trophies. It's good to see the have-nots succeed also.
 
Okay, I have one question: How the heck did the Giants get the 2007 defense and special teams to show up tonight? The defense and special teams looked like different players than have been on the field for the last couple of years. Even Eli was channeling his superbowl performance - spinning away from presure and throwing a 30 yard strike to Victor Cruz that resembled nothing so much as his escape and throw to David Tyree. 15 touchdown passes in the fourth quarter, a new NFL record, and he threw for more than 4,950 yards for the season.
They even rushed the ball for 106 yards, their 4th straight good rushing performance after rushing for an average of 84 yards per game for the first 12 games.

If the Giants weren't so ridiculously inconsistent, I would think they had a chance to win next week against Atlanta. If they would show up and play like they did tonight, week in and week out, they would be a legitimately good team. They really make a fan scratch his or her head: quality wins against the Patriots in Foxboro, the Eagles in Philly, Dallas in Dallas, the Jets (technically a road game), and the Cowboys again at home, in a winner take all game, balanced against inexplicable losses to Washington twice and the Seahawks in Giants stadium. They play the two best teams in the NFC incredibly close (losing 38-35 to the then undefeated Packers and losing to the 49ers in Candlestick on a sack-fumble of Eli Manning on a first and 10 on the 49ers 12 yard line as they were about to go in for the go ahead score with less than a minute to play), yet get blown out by the 3rd best team, the Saints, and knocked around by the Eagles in Giants Stadium. This team is like Jeckle and Hyde. They give up 34 points to the Cowboys 3 weeks ago, but hold them to 14 tonight.

But from now on, its all gravy for me. They won the division (the first time a team with less than 10 wins ever won the NFC East), will host a playoff game they actually might have a chance at winning (I will hope for bad weather again like tonight). If they lose, they still did way better than I expected, and if they win, and then go get their butts whipped by Green Bay, I will still consider this a successful season for a Giants team decimated by injuries that lost Eli's two favorite targets (Smith and Boss) to free agency.
 
jazzeum said:
From a traditionalist point of view, you may not like parity but it guarantees that you keep the fan's interest by ensuring that many teams have a chance to win. I don't want to see the same two or three teams dominating the league. It probably guarantees that we have competitive SBs, which until the last few years were very uncompetitive.

As far as penalizing a team for not winning 10 games, that's just silly. Will you give a team that wins 13 plus games a bonus? I doubt it. The goal in any sport is to win your division or to win the most games, not some artificial number. No matter how many you win, if you win one more than your opponent, that's the goal. Always has been, always will be.
Click to expand...

Why should the goal be to win a division? I always thought the goal is to beat the teams you play. If the Falcons beat 10 of the 16 teams they played, why should the Giants, who won only 9 of 16, host them next week in the playoffs? Why not just have the 6 best records in each league be ranked 1 to 6, and ditch the stupidity of divisional play? The NFC West didn't have a single winning team last year, and the best the AFC west could do this year was 8-8. A couple of years ago these divisions were sending 8-8 or 9-7 teams to the playoffs as "division champions" while an 11-5 Patriots team sat home. They should do the same thing in MLB: the best 4 teams in each league make the playoffs, lose the unbalanced schedule, and ditch division titles.
 
I am tipping my local teams the Broncos and the Lions{sm4} and the teams with the Aussie kickers (Washington is one of them).

Even somebody called Tebow has been getting a mention in the papers Down Under.
 
MapleLeaf said:
Brady and the boys ALL THE WAY
They gave back Buffalo what Buffalo
gave them at the beginning
Down 21 then win
Anybody knows about more than 49 unanswered points
in prior games???
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, the big, bad, Chicago Bears beat the Washington Redskins in the 1940 NFL Championship Game 73-0. I believe this answers the question. There are also at least 8 other games in NFL history where the score was 50-0 or greater, including the 2009 game where the Patriots beat the Titans 59-0. :D -- Al
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top