2012 NFL Season

I wouldn't talk bad about a guy who has proven he has no problem committing murder and getting away with it. I enjoy living.

 

Can we talk about this "over the hump" line of thinking? There is no such thing as "over the hump." You're either good, or you're not. What constitutes getting over the hump really? Being okay, showing potential, then winning a playoff game? Winning a Superbowl? What happens if they win that SB then the next season completely sucks? What happens if during their playoff run, the RB and defense do most of the work and the QB averages 250, 2TDs, 1INT, no fumbles or sacks. Is that really "over the hump." Can you go back over the hump?

It's a silly idea discussion. All QBs have a range that is set by personnel around them, coaching and strength of schedule. We can't keep talking about these guys like they're in a vacuum. I mean, Kansas City fans were booing Matt Cassel, but the guy went 11-5 in New England, and the Patriots weren't running the ground and pound. I bet Romo, Flacco, Cutler, and Vick are different QBs if they end up in better systems with consistent WRs and at the least O-Lines.

What's the difference between the game where we were discussing if Aaron Rodgers was elite or the game where we saw "Oh fuck, Aaron Rodgers is elite." The difference was the fact his O-Line was eating that pass rush like fat Packers fans at the Old Country Buffet and he had 20 minutes per pass. Yes I know he scrambled on that one and threw it on the go, but overall, that one game dropped his sack rate. That's huge.

 

Here is the problem with last night:

Everyone is saying how Peyton willed his team to win, but that absolutely was NOT the case, and it is kind of driving me nuts. 14 points were scored BY the defense, and the rest of the points were a direct result of turnovers giving the Broncos amazing field position. Manning had, no doubt, an EXCELLENT second half, but the credit for that win does not fall at Manning's feet alone. That Bronco defense is what won them the game. The news (ESPN, mostly) is calling it Manning's greatest comeback, but it wasn't his comeback! Its like the defense handed the win to Manning on a silver platter, and Manning accepted it, and now all anyone can talk about is how brilliant Manning is for accepting that win. I'm pretty sure Kevin Kolb or Brady Quinn could've won that game under those circumstances, for fuck sake. They talk about Rivers turning it over and Manning winning, but that defense seems to be getting absolutely zero credit.

Edit: As for Rivers:

Spoiler

I mean, I guess at least he didn't get up and walk away, right?

As for Rodgers, he just did what he is capable of when he has time. This season has exposed that Rodgers isn't a very good QB when he is being pressured consistently. Very few guys are. The key to beating the Packers is getting consistent pressure on Rodgers. Ultimately, Rodgers will only be as good as his offensive line lets him be. I think if the Packers were to face the the Giants today, they'd get roasted, and if I were a Packers fan, I wouldn't be too confident yet.

 

Define good. Whats the difference between good and hump? Can you be good then not good? Everybody said Eli wasnt good for a long time. Isn't it just semantics?

The hump for me is the only think that matters for a QB. Leading your team to wins.

 

I don't make as much of these heat-of-the-moment sidelines things as the Skip Bayless types. If you're a competitive guy (and you kinda have to be to play QB in the NFL), there are gonna be times when you screw up and some guy is up in your face yelling about it when you don't wanna hear it.

 

I don't make as much of these heat-of-the-moment sidelines things as the Skip Bayless types. If you're a competitive guy (and you kinda have to be to play QB in the NFL), there are gonna be times when you screw up and some guy is up in your face yelling about it when you don't wanna hear it.[/quote]

I agree. Unless it becomes habitual.

What do you think Norv said?

"You know we're the light blue team, right?"

"Way to get me fired, numbnuts".

Or, like I said earlier, based on Rivers' shouting at Norv last week to punt in lieu of trying a 50+yd FG:

"GOTTA THROW THAT ONE AWAY, PHIL".

 

So many things could've been said by either man.

Norv: "Seriously? They're going to blame me for this?"
Rivers: "I'd tell you to fuck off if I were the kind of guy who swears."

Norv: "Its okay, Phil. Really, we all have these days."
Rivers: "You've had entire seasons like this."

Norv: "So, umm... is it okay if I sit down at my press conference with a big smile because, for once, it wasn't my fault?"
Rivers: "Sure, if I can sit in with the press and ask why your neck looks like a 70 year old porn star's vagina."

 

I promise I'll get off Rodgers' nuts soon, but you do realize he had a 97 passer rating before that game, right? That isn't very good? Also, his first year the offensive line was awful, as in either the worst in the league or in the bottom 3, and he still played well. His second year the line was about average, and he had borderline mvp numbers. Yeah, he doesn't play as well when there is constant pressure, but nobody really does. I specifically remember Warner seemed unfazed by it at times, but of course a worse o-line is going to make a worse QB.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Ryan has done fuck all in the playoffs, and has been on very good teams (I honestly think the falcons are prepped for another 13-3 into 1 and done, but I'll save that for another time). Eli won his super bowls behind insanely good defensive performances, while admittedly playing fairly well. Flacco? He's the weakest QB you listed in my opinion. I don't find it hard to believe that Romo, or Rivers could have won a super bowl with the team Flacco has had around him. As for Cutler, the bears are arguably the best team in the league right now, so I wouldn't at all be surprised if he won it all within the next year or two. Although, it probably will have to be soon, since they have a lot of aging stars on the bears.

 

Huh? Who is arguing the Bears are the top team in the league?

They have arguably played the easiest schedule in the NFL to this point. Id reserve top team judgment until they play a team with a winning record.

 

Bill Barnwell, and he's pretty fucking good at his job. Here is the article.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8506988/the-top-teams-game-rest-week-6-news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/850 ... eek-6-news</a>

 

The bears have played an easy schedule, but outside the loss to the packers they have been murdering everyone else. At the moment they are second in points scored per game and first in defense (not to mention their sack and interception totals which are equally good). Any team doing that, even with an easy schedule should be in the discussion for best in the league. All of the falcons' opponents are either .500 or worse, yet there's plenty of people putting them in the top spot. The bears will get a better test in the second half of the season, so we will see. They are however, at the very least, in the super bowl discussion at this point.

 

As a Bears fan, I cannot make the argument that the Bears are Superbowl contenders. The hardest part of their schedule is yet to come, and those statistics are misleading. Being second in points scored per game is easy when your defense is responsible for 14 points a game (two pick-sixes in each of their last two games). That is NOT a reflection of the offense. Their offensive line remains suspect, on its best days, and absolutely atrocious on its worst. Cutler is very Jekyl/Hyde when it comes to his days; he either has a great day and throws for three TDs or he has an awful day and throws three picks. He rarely falls in the middle and has mediocre games. The second things start to go south, he starts pressing and makes bad decisions, making things worse.

Now, all that said, I can easily make the argument that they are at least playoff bound. They lead their division at the moment, and I can't foresee them losing to Detroit on Monday. They get the Packers one more time at home, and they still have two games against the Vikings (and I do think they're better than the Vikings). If they can beat the Vikings and Lions, and I very much think they will win at least 3 of those 4 games, they should be favorites for the division at this point. They should also have wins against Tennessee and Carolina.

Once it gets to the 2nd half, though, they face the Seahawks, 49ers, and Texans, and I would be very surprised if they won two of those three. The 49ers and Seahawks defenses will absolutely feast on Cutler and that awful O-Line.

I just don't know with these Bears. They're not as good as Superbowl contenders, but I do think they're better than, say, the Lions and Vikings.

 

They have murdered teams because their opponents are 11-16. Running up the score on the Jaguars and Colts does not a SuperBowl contender make. Id wait til they played the Texans and 49ers before making any claims. Its a little early.

How early? The Dolphins are in 1st place in their division and the Pats are in last. Thats how early.

 

You shut your whore mouth. They're all .500. They're all tied.

 

It's all in the perspective.

Dolphins fans are pumped to be 3-3 (pissed were not 5-1, stupid fucking kicker) while the Pats fans have to cut themselves like a chunky white girl with daddy issues just to get some sleep.

 

I think Parker is going to have to come to grips with the fact that his team is simply not as good this year as they have been in the past. They are not the dominant force anymore. That happens as a team ages. They'll likely win 9 or 10 games this year, probably enough for at least a wild card spot, if not outright winning their (awful) division, but that will be about it. Gone are the days of dominating their division and going 13-3 or 14-2. When Tawmmy is gone, that team is going to go down the shitter faster than a Chipotle Burrito eaten by a fat man that just washed it down with a gallon of laxative.

Besides, at least the Packers can lean on the fact that they got robbed of a win by awful replacement refs. The Pats have to live with losing to the Cardinals... in Foxboro... when they were led by Kevin Kolb.

 

I think all the draft day wheeling and dealing from Belichick has caught up with him. You can only trade down so many times before you wind up with a stockpile of picks and a defense with a bunch of 5-7th round picks on it. He's gotten a little arrogant with figuring Brady and some guys from the local semi-pro team can beat anybody.

I know its a passing league, but if you cant run or stop the run, youre gonna get beat by a 5'9" QB.

 

OR maybe you could see a team that is leading the NFL in both yards and points per game. Of course the defense is once again doing the old "bend but don't break" nonsense, but a team that's lost tough games to two very good teams (Baltimore and Seattle) plus a game against a possible playoff team in which Gostkowski missed a last second kick (granted they were in position because of Ryan Williams' brain fart, plus the holding call givento Gronk on Woodhead's run was bullshit) is still very good. Saying they're not dominant is either a gross oversimplification or shows that you know nothing of football apart from watching the highlight shows. Or maybe both.

 

Even when they were winning super bowls it's not like they had a bunch of first rounders making plays. Only Law and McGinest were having impact. This was a defense that won a SB with Troy Brown playing corner ffs. Hell, in 01 it was Bruschi, Cox, Vrabel, McGinest, Law, Milloy and so forth making plays. Not the Pro Bowl roster, but they all knew their jobs and did them well. Man I loved that team.