NFL thread 2014 v. Frankford Yellow Jackets Lay the Pipe on the Dayton Triangles

[TAC]

Goddamn I suck.  Smart phone and smart owner my ass.

[jingle.boy]

I cannot understand how the Broncos play mos g of yh ed fames in N.E.  Dome funky formula that I'm to lazy to figure out.

I need a funky formula to figure out WTF you just wrote!

I lol'd. Hard.

I just might have to sig this. 

Joe, care to clarify what you were trying to type?

[KevShmev]

The Colts rout is a done deal, so why waste time...

Post-Week 9 Top 10 Power Rankings
1. New England - they deserve their due; no one is playing than them right now
2. Arizona - they don't have that best team in the league look, but 7-1 is 7-1
3. Denver - John Fox is a good coach, but he was completely outclassed yesterday
4. Indianapolis - looking great, despite that hiccup last week in Pittsburgh
5. Philadelphia - can Sanchez play well every week?
6. Detroit - 6-2 and still due to get Megatron back
7. Pittsburgh - hot as hell right now, but that home loss to TB still sticks out like a sore thumb
8. Dallas - it was fun while it lasted, eh, Cowobys fans?
9. Green Bay - can they cure their road woes?
10. Seattle - still looking flawed, but back on the winning track
 
Trending up: Buffalo, KC and Miami
Trending down: San Diego, Carolina and San Francisco
Bottom 3: Tampa Bay, NY Jets and Oakland
 
Also:

MVP update time!  This is what my top 5 would be right now for MVP of the NFL:

1. Peyton Manning
2. Aaron Rodgers
3. Andrew Luck
4. Ben Roethlisberger
5. Tom Brady/Gronk (tie)

[bosk1]

This season has been so strange so far.  I don't think I could do a top 10 if I tried.  If I had to do a top 5, it would probably be:

1.  Broncos
2.  Patriots
3.  49ers
4.  Cardinals
5.  Colts

[Dark Castle]

How can you legitimately put the 49ers at #3? I'm sorry but that makes no sense.

[bosk1]

I just objectively weight what I see.  Sorry if you are so influenced by your 49er hate that you can't be more objective.

[Dark Castle]

Dude, cut the cheese, me disliking the 49'ers isn't making me not objective.

[jingle.boy]

I just objectively weight what I see.  Sorry if you are so influenced by your 49er hate that you can't be more objective.

You've got to be kidding?!?!  You are so influenced by your homer-bias, it's not even laughable anymore. A 4-4 team with more points against than points for is the third best in the league??  There are more than a few teams that outclass them in record, PF, PA:

Miami
Buffalo
Baltimore
KC
Philli
Dallas
Seattle

Jesus, even Cleveland is better than the Niners in those three stat categories!!

I can't believe that you honestly believe you're being objective. I'd like to think you're being sarcastic, but you're probably not. You can justify it in your mind all you want, but the Niners aren't even a Top 10 team at the moment. Barely even in the top 1/2 of the league.

Your comment is up for "C'mon man!!"

[Xanthul]

I'd like to think you're being sarcastic

Ding ding

[black_biff_stadler]

The Oilers are having a better season than the 9ers.

[TAC]

Post-Week 9 Top 10 Power Rankings
1. New England -

Oh Kev, I bet that hurt! 



The Weatrher Channel fights back against Bill Belichick.
https://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/weather-channel-takes-stand-vs-belichick

[hefdaddy42]

I'd like to think you're being sarcastic

Ding ding

Boy, I sure hope so.

[KevShmev]

jingle, I can't believe you took bosk1's bait.

Post-Week 9 Top 10 Power Rankings
1. New England -

Oh Kev, I bet that hurt! 

Nah, I can be objective when it comes to that kind of stuff.  NE has looked like the best team as of late and deserve the top spot for now, but the hope here, of course, is that they are peaking too soon.

[jingle.boy]

jingle, I can't believe you took bosk1's bait.

It wouldn't be out of character for him to have a higher opinion of the 9rs than most rational fans.  I do recall using the word "delusional" last year on his opinion of SF.

Plus, it was late when I replied.

He's either trolled me (and Dylan), or the rest of ya.  Either way, I tip my hat to him.

[TAC]

  NE has looked like the best team as of late and deserve the top spot for now, but the hope here, of course, is that they are peaking too soon.

I don't think it's a matter of peaking.
The Pats have games coming up at Indy and at GB. I can easily see them losing one of them and the Broncos winning out. So the Broncos could easily regain home field.
But the Steelers are looking like they will be heard from before it's all over.

[KevShmev]

I think the Broncos will lose one more (one of the road games at KC, SD or Cincy), so we'll need NE to lose two of the three road ones at Indy, GB or SD.  Really, winning this past weekend was far more important for the Patriots. If the Broncos had won, they would have been three games ahead of NE (two in the loss column plus the tiebreaker), so the Patriots had to win that game to have a realistic shot at home field.

Either way, the AFC playoffs are gonna be brutal this year.  There won't be any patsies, I predict (since I think Cincinnati will find a way to not make it).  I think the AFC playoff teams will ultimately by NE, Indy, Pittsburgh, Baltimore (I think they'll find a way in), Denver and KC.
 

[TAC]

I think the Broncos will lose one more (one of the road games at KC, SD or Cincy), so we'll need NE to lose two of the three road ones at Indy, GB or SD.  Really, winning this past weekend was far more important for the Patriots. If the Broncos had won, they would have been three games ahead of NE (two in the loss column plus the tiebreaker), so the Patriots had to win that game to have a realistic shot at home field.

Either way, the AFC playoffs are gonna be brutal this year.  There won't be any patsies, I predict (since I think Cincinnati will find a way to not make it).  I think the AFC playoff teams will ultimately by NE, Indy, Pittsburgh, Baltimore (I think they'll find a way in), Denver and KC.

We?

[Dark Castle]

Why does that bother people so much?
People who say "we" obviously realize they're not part of the team itself, but I mean what's the big hang up about using that?

[TAC]

Why does that bother people so much?
People who say "we" obviously realize they're not part of the team itself, but I mean what's the big hang up about using that?

I'm just joshing Kev with his anti NE thing.
That's all.

[Dark Castle]

ah okay 

[Destiny Of Chaos]

There's no more point in denying it Andrew Luck is the best QB in the NFL. Wish he wasn't a Colt... but it is what it is.

[adamack]

There's no more point in denying it Andrew Luck is the best QB in the NFL. Wish he wasn't a Colt... but it is what it is.

While I'd probably rank Luck at #1 as well, you could make a strong case for Brady.

Luck: 26 TD, 9 INT, 3,085 yards, 100.3 Rating, 63.6% Comp%, 393 Attempts

Brady: 22 TD, 3 INT, 2,392 yards, 103.5 Rating, 64.1% Comp%, 334 Attempts

While Luck has considerably more TD and yards, he also has 59 more attempts. That is more than an entire game's worth of passing attempts.

Brady has 3 interceptions to Luck's 9.

Brady has a better Passer Rating.

Brady has slightly better completion percentage.

The interception comparison alone puts Brady right in the discussion. Also, if he had the same amount of attempts as Luck, he'd likely have at least 4 more TD, and 400 more yards to show for it. And that's being relatively generous.

Luck does has the intangibles nod though, as he is more mobile in the pocket and usually rushes for 20 or so yards per game, and has some rushing TD.

(I'm not a Pats or Brady fan btw, just making a case)

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Brady is up there for sure. But the flip side of "what if Brady had more attempts" is what if Luck had fewer attempts.

My statement is based on more than stats. He is the real deal... the total package, but absolutely not the only great QB playing today.

To quote someone else "If a beautiful woman walks into a bar, you don't wait five years to acknowledge her beauty." Same goes for Luck. He's been great since day one, and by allowing Manning to walk and by "sucking for Luck", the Colts have bought themselves another 12-15 years of being contenders. 

[adamack]

Brady is up there for sure. But the flip side of "what if Brady had more attempts" is what if Luck had fewer attempts.

My statement is based on more than stats. He is the real deal... the total package, but absolutely not the only great QB playing today.

Yeah I definitely agree on that. He and Rodgers are the most "total package" QB's playing today. Both will go down as Brady/Manning successors for sure.

[King Postwhore]

There's no more point in denying it Andrew Luck is the best QB in the NFL. Wish he wasn't a Colt... but it is what it is.

I never get into these agruements .  Just that who is in the elite category and both are including P Manning & . Mr. Discount double check.  Ben is also very close.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

There's no more point in denying it Andrew Luck is the best QB in the NFL. Wish he wasn't a Colt... but it is what it is.

I never get into these agruements .  Just that who is in the elite category and both are including P Manning & . Mr. Discount double check.  Ben is also very close.

Ben's had a hell of a run (much like Flacco's 2012 postseason run), but to me, neither are elite, and never will be. Still two very good QBs and two of the toughest in the modern era.

[King Postwhore]

Just a hair below.  I agree but very close

[Dream Team]

There's no more point in denying it Andrew Luck is the best QB in the NFL. Wish he wasn't a Colt... but it is what it is.

While I'd probably rank Luck at #1 as well, you could make a strong case for Brady.

Luck: 26 TD, 9 INT, 3,085 yards, 100.3 Rating, 63.6% Comp%, 393 Attempts

Brady: 22 TD, 3 INT, 2,392 yards, 103.5 Rating, 64.1% Comp%, 334 Attempts

While Luck has considerably more TD and yards, he also has 59 more attempts. That is more than an entire game's worth of passing attempts.

Brady has 3 interceptions to Luck's 9.

Brady has a better Passer Rating.

Brady has slightly better completion percentage.

The interception comparison alone puts Brady right in the discussion. Also, if he had the same amount of attempts as Luck, he'd likely have at least 4 more TD, and 400 more yards to show for it. And that's being relatively generous.

Luck does has the intangibles nod though, as he is more mobile in the pocket and usually rushes for 20 or so yards per game, and has some rushing TD.

(I'm not a Pats or Brady fan btw, just making a case)

Well, at the moment Ben's numbers are better than both. Luck needs to do it for another year to earn the top spot IMO.

[KevShmev]

The advantage Luck has over Brady and Roethlisberger is that he has been doing it consistently, week in and week out, while Brady struggled the first four weeks, but has rebounded to have a phenomenal 5-game run, and Roethlisberger's overall numbers are inflated by having had the best 2-week stretch any QB has probably ever had (but he was putting up average numbers this season prior to that). 

Also, I am getting a kick out of many jumping back on the "Brady is better than Peyton" bandwagon after Sunday's game, when just ten months ago, Peyton outplayed Brady by a wide margin in a playoff game.  But that's the "What have you done lately" culture we live in these days, I guess.  See: Aaron Rodgers not getting a single vote in ESPN's midseason MVP voting, which is absolutely absurd, but hey, he was on a bye this past week, and people seemingly only looked at last week when they voted, so there ya go.

[adamack]

There's no more point in denying it Andrew Luck is the best QB in the NFL. Wish he wasn't a Colt... but it is what it is.

While I'd probably rank Luck at #1 as well, you could make a strong case for Brady.

Luck: 26 TD, 9 INT, 3,085 yards, 100.3 Rating, 63.6% Comp%, 393 Attempts

Brady: 22 TD, 3 INT, 2,392 yards, 103.5 Rating, 64.1% Comp%, 334 Attempts

While Luck has considerably more TD and yards, he also has 59 more attempts. That is more than an entire game's worth of passing attempts.

Brady has 3 interceptions to Luck's 9.

Brady has a better Passer Rating.

Brady has slightly better completion percentage.

The interception comparison alone puts Brady right in the discussion. Also, if he had the same amount of attempts as Luck, he'd likely have at least 4 more TD, and 400 more yards to show for it. And that's being relatively generous.

Luck does has the intangibles nod though, as he is more mobile in the pocket and usually rushes for 20 or so yards per game, and has some rushing TD.

(I'm not a Pats or Brady fan btw, just making a case)

Well, at the moment Ben's numbers are better than both. Luck needs to do it for another year to earn the top spot IMO.

Absolutely, Ben's numbers are outstanding.

But the majority of Ben's numbers have come in 2 games (nearly half of his TD's and 1/3 of his yards) , where Brady's are a bit more spread out over the season.

Also, I didn't want to say Ben, because I'm a huge Steelers fan and people would think I'm homering 

[black_biff_stadler]

Mark Malone is the best them.

[Jamesman42]

No offense bosk, but the 49ers are not a top 3 team. They barely are in the top 16 at the moment, imo

[Jaq]

Why does that bother people so much?
People who say "we" obviously realize they're not part of the team itself, but I mean what's the big hang up about using that?

Because a lot of people don't think they're not part of the team? And it's grossly inaccurate from a grammar stand point to use "we" to apply yourself to an organization you're not a member of?

No one says "we" in regards to their love of a band (Oh, the new DT is out! We made a great album!) but sports fans go around acting like they're part of the team all the time without breaking a sweat.

And don't get me started about my biggest sports pet peeve: "Break contain." 

[hefdaddy42]

The feeling that you are part of the team is half of the appeal of being a longtime fan of a particular team.

I have been a lifelong fan of UNC basketball.  When talking about a game, I always talk about how WE did.  Same thing with the football team from my alma mater.  WE won on Saturday 44-0.  THEY didn't win, WE won.

Same thing with the Panthers (God help us).  THEY haven't lost a couple of stinkers in a row, WE have.  I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Jaq]

Because you're not actually part of the team and aren't performing with them? You support them. Supporting does not equate to membership.

Again, it's only sports fans. No one thinks their support of a band or a movie allows them to consider themselves part of the organization that made said product, but plonking your butt down in front of a TV and watching a game somehow correlates to active participation.