Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: NFL

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> Grandstand >> RE: NFL Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: NFL - 4/1/2012 10:20:48 PM   
Captain Black


Posts: 6731
Joined: 30/9/2005
It completely blows my mind that, not two years after appearing in a Super Bowl, Peyton Manning may end up playing for a team other than the Colts. Wonder what odds you'd have got on that at the time? But hey, fun to speculate. I don't follow (heck, most of the time I don't even understand) cap issues, but as their QB is the weak link in an otherwise strong team, I'd have a guess that he may end up a 49er.


_____________________________

Invisiotext:
[color=#F1F1F1]text[/color]

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 691
RE: NFL - 5/1/2012 1:17:50 PM   
SWOTBM


Posts: 1998
Joined: 6/5/2007
Colts would be stupid to get rid of Manning- seems like deja vu with San Diego a couple of years back when they drafted Rivers and let Brees go after his shoulder injury.  Look how well that turned out for the Chargers   If this Luck guy is as amazing as everyone is making him out to be then the Colts will get a load of draft picks for him, they have loads of holes on defense that could be filled. 

MVP?  Either Brady or Brees, tough call but I would say Brees edges over Rodgers and Brady.  Packers have a slightly better receiving group and Brees has had to carry a pretty poor defense.  Plus I hate Brady


_____________________________

PSN: light_brigade
Gamertag: chauders

(in reply to Captain Black)
Post #: 692
RE: NFL - 5/1/2012 7:43:56 PM   
Captain Black


Posts: 6731
Joined: 30/9/2005
I don't mind; they're all pretty deserving it's been such an astonishing year. I reckon it'll go to Rodgers with Brees getting offensive player of the year.


_____________________________

Invisiotext:
[color=#F1F1F1]text[/color]

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 693
RE: NFL - 5/1/2012 8:00:46 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
well, if yer going to bring in defences to judge the importance of a QB to his team then Brees comes off badly in that. Pats are last and the Pack are right there too.

NE this season, in comparison to when Cassel stepped in, would have been absolutely rotten this season.

Brees had 4 running backs to use. All of which, when fit, were effective. Little dump offs and swing passes and screens... any old QB could put up decent numbers with that AND a healthy O-line.

Meanwhile Rodgers had 4 running backs too, though of far less effectiveness. Compare Grant to Thomas, Starks to Ivory, Kuhn to Ingram, Saine to Sproules.

Both had beast TEs though only Graham could be relied upon to catch the ball - if Finley didn't drop a handful vs the Chiefs the Pack are undefeated.

Granted Jennings and Nelson are better than what Brees has.

Rodgers also had a beat up O-line. We had a back-up play most of the season in 3 different positions. We lost our best lineman Clifton for most of the season. Rodgers got sacked more than either Brees or Brady and threw only 6 intereceptions. Rodgers definitely - without even looking at the stats - ran far more often and for more yards than either Brady or Brees and not because the plays were designed. McCarthy has said he never calls a play in which Rodgers is required to rush. When Rodgers runs it's 'cos he's no other option. That happened a fair bit.

This is all waffle really.

I said before that I'd give it to Manning and I mean it. Has any single player's worth ever been more definitively demonstrated? His absence affected every aspect of the team, not just the offense - witness the reduced effectiveness of mathis and Freeney.

They winna give it to Manning, of course.

Rodgers should win it in his stead.

I didn't like the way the saints made it clear they were trying to get Brees his yardage record. Team game. Rodgers led his team to more wins than Brees, with a worse defence, with a badly beaten up O-line, with an unreliable run game, while throwing more touchdowns and less interceptions with the highest QB rating ever over a season. Plus the Pack beat the Saints in Week 1.

That's my entirely neutral view.



_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 694
RE: NFL - 8/1/2012 4:18:23 PM   
SWOTBM


Posts: 1998
Joined: 6/5/2007
So, Wildcard Weekend, thoughts so far?  Didn't watch the Texans/Bengals game as I wasn't particularly interested in either team, but I did think the Saints/Lions game was a cracker.  I felt that Stafford got a bit overconfident by throwing the ball to receivers who were double, and sometimes triple, covered- it was an interception waiting to happen.  Based on last nights performance the Saints should really use their running game to kill off teams instead of passing it.  Keeps the opposition in the game if they persist with the pass. 

Also, I can't help but think that defense is becoming more and more redundant now in the NFL, particularly against pass happy teams like the Saints/Packers/Pats.  It is so hard to get to the QB and most of the time they get gashed by receivers if they try and bring pressure from the LB/DB.  I don't see why DC's just rush three, have one LB to spy the RB and drop everyone else into coverage.  At least that way you force teams to beat you by running the ball, or if they want to throw it then there is an increased chance of turning the ball over.  And really, how hard is it for these DBs to stick to their assignments.  I mean they practice it all week and get paid to do it FFS, and come game time we still have blown coverages like that last Meacham TD.  My final pearl of wisdom is that with the pass happy offense that most teams have, surely the archetypal build of the LB has to change to something more of a DB?  And they should learn to tackle again, there is no excuse.  With proper technique you don't have to be massive to takedown someone who is bigger than you. 

Can't wait for the Giants game.  Come on G-men


_____________________________

PSN: light_brigade
Gamertag: chauders

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 695
RE: NFL - 8/1/2012 10:37:44 PM   
Captain Black


Posts: 6731
Joined: 30/9/2005
Well, we have two potentially amazing NFC matches for next week. Didn't see any of it, but I'm assuming the Giants defence played really well rather than Atlanta just not showing up?

I don't watch enough these days to speculate with any confidence about how defences will change, but at a guess, I think with the emergence WRs who are built like TEs, there will be more defensive players who are hybrids between the typical linebacker/defensive back with qualities to match. And forget three man rushes; why not mix it up even more by dropping 8 and 9 into coverage? Are there any teams who do this? Certainly against QBs who aren't a genuine threat to run. You may not generate any rush, but if you're not doing that anyway it gives you more of a chance to stop a shorter passing game.


_____________________________

Invisiotext:
[color=#F1F1F1]text[/color]

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 696
RE: NFL - 9/1/2012 8:40:08 AM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
I saw most of the Giants game. I'd recorded it. Stopped watching when in went 24-2. Mike Smith made a couple more rubbish 4th and 1 calls. Got lucky in the first case 'cos his defence earned a safety swiftly afterwards. Seemed to me like Turner was underused. Manning played well.

Polamalu's lost it. If you're a Safety and Tebow burns you deep that often then you've to look at yourself. Number 1 defence? They need to re-define how they determine that. Number 1 defences don't get beaten by Tebow. Patriots must be well chuffed.

Only 2 of 4 in my WC predictions. A home sweep on WC Weekend... when did that last happen?

Saints @ Niners: Niners win. Don't fancy Saints on the road against a proper defence.
Giants @ Pack: I'm bricking it. Giants have a real chance. Good match up. Their D Line against our beaten up O Line. Their wide outs against our torchable defence. If our offence has an off day then that'll be that.

Broncos @ Pats: I'm not having the bloody Broncos in the Championship game. Not having it. I've been pulling for the Steelers and now the Pats. What in the hell is going on?
Texans @ Ravens: Ravens on the back of Rice.

edit: As for this drivel about dropping in coverage and abandoning pressurising the QB... no chance. Rushing 3 nearly cost the Broncos the game yestreen. Gave Ben time to hobble around and make plays - only a beast of a play by Dumervill took it to overtime, he doesn't make that strip sack and Suisham kicks the gamewinner. Meanwhile the Giants are marching on the back of JPP, Tuck, Canty and Osi. A big reason the Packers D has deteriorated this season is there's no-one to take advantage of Matthews getting doubled. There's only so long you can credibly expect a DB or LB to cover a receiver. Give a QB worthy of the name 5 seconds to go through a progression and you'll get burned. Manning Sr., Brees, Rodgers all usually get rid of the ball inside 3.5 seconds. You give rabbits like Sanchez, Romo, Flacco and even decent rookies time to work without the glare of headlines then you'll get beat.

< Message edited by boaby -- 9/1/2012 8:55:08 AM >


_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to Captain Black)
Post #: 697
RE: NFL - 10/1/2012 9:13:53 PM   
SWOTBM


Posts: 1998
Joined: 6/5/2007
I recorded the Broncos/Steelers match and purposefully stayed away from this thread, managed to get to OT but as I was fast forwarding the adverts I accidently saw the first play   In any event it was an exciting game to watch, although I can't believe how awful the number 1 ranked defense was.  Broncos vs the Pats will be awesome.  Hope they smash the Pats, which would be the ultimate irony for McDaniels

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

edit: As for this drivel about dropping in coverage and abandoning pressurising the QB... no chance. Rushing 3 nearly cost the Broncos the game yestreen. Gave Ben time to hobble around and make plays - only a beast of a play by Dumervill took it to overtime, he doesn't make that strip sack and Suisham kicks the gamewinner. Meanwhile the Giants are marching on the back of JPP, Tuck, Canty and Osi. A big reason the Packers D has deteriorated this season is there's no-one to take advantage of Matthews getting doubled. There's only so long you can credibly expect a DB or LB to cover a receiver. Give a QB worthy of the name 5 seconds to go through a progression and you'll get burned. Manning Sr., Brees, Rodgers all usually get rid of the ball inside 3.5 seconds. You give rabbits like Sanchez, Romo, Flacco and even decent rookies time to work without the glare of headlines then you'll get beat.


It was more of a theory that I was just throwing out there.  And that comparison can't really be made imo because for the most part Denver were dropping LBs into coverage which is never gonna work against the likes of Wallace and Brown.  I was thinking of not even having LBs (except maybe one to spy the QB/RB), just DBs instead-then you can mix in different types of coverages. 

That will stretch out the plays to more than 5 seconds which means that the WRs planned routes will break down and the game will be much more unpredictable which I think favours the defense.  You can just say to a DB(s) stay with this guy/zone no matter what; whereas the WR can only run his route- after that the QB can only guess where the WR is going to run next.  Unpredictability leads to incompletions or interceptions.  Like I said though it's just a theory...


quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

Giants @ Pack: I'm bricking it. Giants have a real chance. Good match up. Their D Line against our beaten up O Line. Their wide outs against our torchable defence. If our offence has an off day then that'll be that.



Come get some Pack.  We got your number this time


_____________________________

PSN: light_brigade
Gamertag: chauders

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 698
RE: NFL - 10/1/2012 9:38:52 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: SWOTBM

I recorded the Broncos/Steelers match and purposefully stayed away from this thread, managed to get to OT but as I was fast forwarding the adverts I accidently saw the first play†† In any event it was an exciting game to watch, although I can't believe how awful the number 1 ranked defense was.† Broncos vs the Pats will be awesome.† Hope they smash the Pats, which would be the ultimate irony for McDaniels

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

edit: As for this drivel about dropping in coverage and abandoning pressurising the QB... no chance. Rushing 3 nearly cost the Broncos the game yestreen. Gave Ben time to hobble around and make plays - only a beast of a play by Dumervill took it to overtime, he doesn't make that strip sack and Suisham kicks the gamewinner. Meanwhile the Giants are marching on the back of JPP, Tuck, Canty and Osi. A big reason the Packers D has deteriorated this season is there's no-one to take advantage of Matthews getting doubled. There's only so long you can credibly expect a DB or LB to cover a receiver. Give a QB worthy of the name 5 seconds to go through a progression and you'll get burned. Manning Sr., Brees, Rodgers all usually get rid of the ball inside 3.5 seconds. You give rabbits like Sanchez, Romo, Flacco and even decent rookies time to work without the glare of headlines then you'll get beat.


It was more of a theory that I was just throwing out there.† And that comparison can't really be made imo because for the most part Denver were dropping LBs into coverage which is never gonna work against the likes of Wallace and Brown.† I was thinking of not even having LBs (except maybe one to spy the QB/RB), just DBs instead-then you can mix in different types of coverages.†

That will stretch out the plays to more than 5 seconds which means that the WRs planned routes will break down and the game will be much more unpredictable which I think favours the defense.† You can just say to a DB(s) stay with this guy/zone no matter what; whereas the WR can only run his route- after that the QB can only guess where the WR is going to run next.† Unpredictability leads to incompletions or interceptions.† Like I said though it's just a theory...


quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

Giants @ Pack: I'm bricking it. Giants have a real chance. Good match up. Their D Line against our beaten up O Line. Their wide outs against our torchable defence. If our offence has an off day then that'll be that.



Come get some Pack.† We got your number this time



I disagree about long plays leading to good things for the defence. Maybe if the QB is scrambling around with big ol' linemen trying to rip his head off. Especially if time is a factor.

Give a QB who can make good decisions the time in the pocket a three man rush allows then at least one receiver is going to get open or a running lane will open up.

Rush 3 at Rodgers all game and you'd get absolutely demolished. In fact you should on the blower to Coughlin and Fewell. Tell them your plan. If they love it then Packers would get 50+. Rodgers would get 100+ on the ground without getting touched.


_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 699
RE: NFL - 10/1/2012 10:22:03 PM   
SWOTBM


Posts: 1998
Joined: 6/5/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

I disagree about long plays leading to good things for the defence. Maybe if the QB is scrambling around with big ol' linemen trying to rip his head off. Especially if time is a factor.

Give a QB who can make good decisions the time in the pocket a three man rush allows then at least one receiver is going to get open or a running lane will open up.

Rush 3 at Rodgers all game and you'd get absolutely demolished. In fact you should on the blower to Coughlin and Fewell. Tell them your plan. If they love it then Packers would get 50+. Rodgers would get 100+ on the ground without getting touched.



We obviously don't have the personnel to test my theory, firstly due to our injuries in the secondary and also because coverage isn't exactly our strong suit as you might have seen    In our case a good pass rush covers up our weakness in the secondary, I don't see why the opposite could not work. 

I still think that with the right personnel this system would be effective against certain teams like the Packers.  You say Rodgers would get 100+ on the ground.  But as a head coach do you really want your star QB running at defenders?  And I think you overestimate the space the QB would have to run, especially if you have someone to spy on him.   And anyway, if you have the offense running the ball to try beat you then as a defense you have taken away a team like the Packers' greatest strength. 


_____________________________

PSN: light_brigade
Gamertag: chauders

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 700
RE: NFL - 10/1/2012 10:39:21 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: SWOTBM

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

I disagree about long plays leading to good things for the defence. Maybe if the QB is scrambling around with big ol' linemen trying to rip his head off. Especially if time is a factor.

Give a QB who can make good decisions the time in the pocket a three man rush allows then at least one receiver is going to get open or a running lane will open up.

Rush 3 at Rodgers all game and you'd get absolutely demolished. In fact you should on the blower to Coughlin and Fewell. Tell them your plan. If they love it then Packers would get 50+. Rodgers would get 100+ on the ground without getting touched.



We obviously don't have the personnel to test my theory, firstly due to our injuries in the secondary and also because coverage isn't exactly our strong suit as you might have seen †† In our case a good pass rush covers up our weakness in the secondary, I don't see why the opposite could not work.†

I still think that with the right personnel this system would be effective against certain teams like the Packers.† You say Rodgers would get 100+ on the ground.† But as a head coach do you really want your star QB running at defenders?† And I think you overestimate the space the QB would have to run, especially if you have someone to spy on him.†† And anyway, if you have the offense running the ball to try beat you then as a defense you have taken away a team like the Packers' greatest strength.†



Wow.

That's like the Belichik '90 to the nth degree. And that only worked 'cos of a missed fieldgoal.

Rodgers doesn't run at defenders he makes defenders miss - ask Urlacher and Briggs. I jest.

Rodgers is savvy enough to take what's on offer. Plenty QBs are.

A 3 man rush... O-Line handles that. Drop 7 and have a spy. Okay, double the main threat - Jennings or Nelson. Even Jennings and Nelson. Who covers the beast tight end? Or the other tight end. Who covers the running back.

What's to stop 1 of the 5 linemen leaving the other four to deal with the 3 and pancake the spy before he gets within sniffing distance of the QB.

Say when the offence - with running personnel on the field - go no huddle in the red-zone. Which of your 7 DBs is gonna stop an RB behind an FB on the goal line?

Like I say call Coughlin. And call Harbaugh and Payton for the week after.


_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 701
RE: NFL - 10/1/2012 11:18:26 PM   
SWOTBM


Posts: 1998
Joined: 6/5/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

A 3 man rush... O-Line handles that. Drop 7 and have a spy. Okay, double the main threat - Jennings or Nelson. Even Jennings and Nelson. Who covers the beast tight end? Or the other tight end. Who covers the running back?

What's to stop 1 of the 5 linemen leaving the other four to deal with the 3 and pancake the spy before he gets within sniffing distance of the QB.

Say when the offence - with running personnel on the field - go no huddle in the red-zone. Which of your 7 DBs is gonna stop an RB behind an FB on the goal line?

Like I say call Coughlin. And call Harbaugh and Payton for the week after.



As I said, you would need the personnel- i.e. corners who can actually cover a receiver (Revis, Asomugha pre-Eagles someone to that effect) and make a tackle in the open field.  That would free up other defenders to cover the other receivers or fill zones.  You ideally in this system would need a dominant nose tackle (Wilfork/Hampton) to clog up the middle and a semi-decent defensive end to occupy the O-line.  Once you have that framework in place I think my system would work. 

Plus the spy is just that, a spy.  He is only there to tackle the QB/RB if they cross the line of scrimmage.  If the linemen try and cross the line of scrimmage to try and overpower the DBs then they would get flagged for ineligable offensive player downfield.  

Obviously the coverage package would depend on the situation.  1st and goal on the 1 yard line is not a good idea for my system.  The coverage would need to change depending on the offensive personnel (is there a RB etc etc)

Again, if I am playing this type of defense and I have made the offense change their style from a passing offense to a QB/RB trying to beat me then I can live with that.  Again, it's like defenses try and shut down a dominant RB when they try and stop the run they risk getting beat by the pass.  In this case I would take my chances against the Packer/Pats run game. 


_____________________________

PSN: light_brigade
Gamertag: chauders

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 702
RE: NFL - 11/1/2012 12:00:22 AM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: SWOTBM

quote:

ORIGINAL: boaby

A 3 man rush... O-Line handles that. Drop 7 and have a spy. Okay, double the main threat - Jennings or Nelson. Even Jennings and Nelson. Who covers the beast tight end? Or the other tight end. Who covers the running back?

What's to stop 1 of the 5 linemen leaving the other four to deal with the 3 and pancake the spy before he gets within sniffing distance of the QB.

Say when the offence - with running personnel on the field - go no huddle in the red-zone. Which of your 7 DBs is gonna stop an RB behind an FB on the goal line?

Like I say call Coughlin. And call Harbaugh and Payton for the week after.



As I said, you would need the personnel- i.e. corners who can actually cover a receiver (Revis, Asomugha pre-Eagles someone to that effect) and make a tackle in the open field.† That would free up other defenders to cover the other receivers or fill zones.† You ideally in this system would need a dominant nose tackle (Wilfork/Hampton) to clog up the middle and a semi-decent defensive end to occupy the O-line.† Once you have that framework in place I think my system would work.†


With your plan it's 5 on 3 at the line in the O-Line's favour. An O-Line would have to be properly sh!t not to dominate. QB draws, delayed hand-offs.

A called pass play... 1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippi (dominant nose tackle double teamed, edge rusher double teamed, other End double teamed) "crikey thinks QB, no-one open" 4 Mississippi 5 Mississippi "still no-one open, these BDs are goood, but look at that space..." QB stubs out cigar and yells the signal for the O-line to advance and off he trotts. Spy gets pancaked, receivers start blocking. QB gets first down untouched.

quote:

Plus the spy is just that, a spy.† He is only there to tackle the QB/RB if they cross the line of scrimmage.† If the linemen try and cross the line of scrimmage to try and overpower the DBs then they would get flagged for ineligable offensive player downfield.†


Well yes. If the QB throws it.

quote:

Obviously the coverage package would depend on the situation.† 1st and goal on the 1 yard line is not a good idea for my system.† The coverage would need to change depending on the offensive personnel (is there a RB etc etc)


If the offence doesn't sub, then the defence can't. Or else they'll get Manning'd - quick snap, defense mid-subs, carnage. What may in midfield appear a good situation for your bonkers system may be carnage by the redzone.

quote:

Again, if I am playing this type of defense and I have made the offense change their style from a passing offense to a QB/RB trying to beat me then I can live with that.† Again, it's like defenses try and shut down a dominant RB when they try and stop the run they risk getting beat by the pass.† In this case I would take my chances against the Packer/Pats run game.†


Good luck with that.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 703
RE: NFL - 12/1/2012 10:01:48 AM   
jiraffejustin


Posts: 481
Joined: 29/3/2011
Just out of curiosity, how many people here agree with these two statements?:

Tony Romo is the most unfairly crapped on quarterback in the league.

Tim Tebow receives the most undeserving praise. (No, not a joke on him being a Christian, I am a Christian, and the jokes are old.)

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 704
RE: NFL - 13/1/2012 7:01:48 PM   
FilthWizard


Posts: 129
Joined: 12/1/2012
From: Tokyo-3
Divisional Predictions

NO @ SF -- San Francisco. Any other team, I'd begrudgingly say Saints, but they're rocky on the road and I'm hoping SF smear them across it.

NY @ GB -- New York. As much as I'd like to see them beg for mercy after last week as a Falcons fan, I'm an underdog fan too. No more Packers, please.

DE @ NE -- New England. Tebow'll choke and Brady will show him how it's done.

HOU @ BAL -- Baltimore. Always had a soft spot for the Ravens since one of the first Super Bowls I watched was 2001. They're 8-0 at home and the Texans just don't have the legs for it.


_____________________________

It's April. What do you expect?

(in reply to jiraffejustin)
Post #: 705
RE: NFL - 14/1/2012 11:47:44 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
What in the hell is going on?

'niners nick it off the Saints 5 times and only have a 6 point lead. 5 times.

How can a team turning it over 5 times on the road in the post-season still be favourites to win?

Crazy game.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to FilthWizard)
Post #: 706
RE: NFL - 14/1/2012 11:59:06 PM   
FilthWizard


Posts: 129
Joined: 12/1/2012
From: Tokyo-3


No idea, but I wouldn't want to be an SF fan if the Saints are still within a touchdown for the 4th Q.

_____________________________

It's April. What do you expect?

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 707
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 1:07:09 AM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
And there it is.

1.32 to get Akers in range...

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to FilthWizard)
Post #: 708
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 1:10:54 AM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
Akers? Nah. Nae need for him.

What. A, Game.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 709
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 1:23:03 AM   
FilthWizard


Posts: 129
Joined: 12/1/2012
From: Tokyo-3


_____________________________

It's April. What do you expect?

(in reply to Captain Black)
Post #: 710
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 1:25:03 AM   
FilthWizard


Posts: 129
Joined: 12/1/2012
From: Tokyo-3
If that's the tone for the rest of the playoffs, I'm going to need a lot more Wotsits and the best Dyson can offer. Christ alive.

_____________________________

It's April. What do you expect?

(in reply to FilthWizard)
Post #: 711
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 2:56:11 AM   
SWOTBM


Posts: 1998
Joined: 6/5/2007
Damn, that game was beyond awesome.  I have a slight soft spot for the Saints but when a team turns it over as often as they did then I can't really complain- they just didn't look up for the game physically.  Plus, seeing the emotion at the end was quite touching.  They will be a real test for the Packer/Giants. 

Looks like Tebowmania is over with it being 36-7 at the half, think I'll record the rest and go to sleep.  If he brings it back from that then there truly is a God 

_____________________________

PSN: light_brigade
Gamertag: chauders

(in reply to FilthWizard)
Post #: 712
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 9:41:20 AM   
Captain Black


Posts: 6731
Joined: 30/9/2005
That's one for the ages.

"Oh, you can't stop the Saints' offence, the best you can do is slow them down!"


Or rely on a bunch of turnovers and a hugely impressive performance from Alex Smith.


_____________________________

Invisiotext:
[color=#F1F1F1]text[/color]

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 713
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 6:16:24 PM   
Professor Moriarty

 

Posts: 10448
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: the waters of Casablanca
TD nearly from the kick-off and not a bad punt at all from Baltimore. The most "boring" game of the play-offs might just not live up to its reputation.

(in reply to Captain Black)
Post #: 714
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 10:10:29 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
gads min.

"Manning's got all day... 15 yard completion."

3 man rush my hairy balls.

3rd and 11. Nexty play TD.

3 man phuckin' rush. Phuckin' nonsense.



_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to Professor Moriarty)
Post #: 715
RE: NFL - 15/1/2012 11:12:59 PM   
boaby

 

Posts: 2808
Joined: 29/12/2006
From: Aberdeenshire
Jeeeeeeeeeeeesus.

Packers deserve to be getting utterly destroyed. Playing terribly.

That last defensive drive... words fail me.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 716
RE: NFL - 16/1/2012 12:27:38 AM   
FilthWizard


Posts: 129
Joined: 12/1/2012
From: Tokyo-3
FUMBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

_____________________________

It's April. What do you expect?

(in reply to boaby)
Post #: 717
RE: NFL - 16/1/2012 1:42:46 AM   
SWOTBM


Posts: 1998
Joined: 6/5/2007
To all those smug Packers fans:



The officials did do their best to get the Packers through as well , what with the bullcrap no-call with the fumble and the ''blow to the head''.  If you take those out we held the best offense in the league to 6 points

Have to give a lot of credit to Perry Fewell, although we did get some pressure late in the game, it's as Troy said against Dallas, he really seems to have simplified the schemes and cut down on the big plays that were burning us for much of the season.  So pleased for Manning too, hopefully he will have silenced some of his critics with this performace, with practically no run game for the first three quarters of the game too.  Everyone kept on raving about Rodgers before the game but when it came down to it he (and the rest of the Packers) choked- some very poor throws, dropped passes, missed tackles, turnovers etc.

SF will be a very physical game, but I think we can compete.  But even if we lose I wouldn't begrudge the Niners if they went on to win the Superbowl. 


_____________________________

PSN: light_brigade
Gamertag: chauders

(in reply to FilthWizard)
Post #: 718
RE: NFL - 16/1/2012 1:55:43 AM   
FilthWizard


Posts: 129
Joined: 12/1/2012
From: Tokyo-3
Should've put a bet on those predictions ó which I've only now realised are the same as boaby's. Wasn't intentional!

So it's Giantsó49ers and PatriotsóRavens next week. I'll go for a GiantsóRavens Super Bowl, with Ravens nicking it in OT. That'd be ace.


_____________________________

It's April. What do you expect?

(in reply to SWOTBM)
Post #: 719
RE: NFL - 16/1/2012 5:33:00 PM   
Captain Black


Posts: 6731
Joined: 30/9/2005
This weekend shows why this sport is so good!

_____________________________

Invisiotext:
[color=#F1F1F1]text[/color]

(in reply to FilthWizard)
Post #: 720
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> Grandstand >> RE: NFL Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094