NFL Week 6

[BillJasper]

Don't they have to have someone on both sides of the center in any formation?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is the point of that play to get the patriots defender to screw up and line up directly on top of the center and/or to nail the defenseless snapper? I dunno if the punt formation rules protecting the snapper would still apply but the punter was still in formation. Maybe they hoped Whalen would get wailed on?

I would think having a player lined up under center taking the snap would negate that rule.

[PilotMan]

I can't believe that the Steelers won this week. I left at halftime and had already marked down the L in my head. That with the expected Bengals win and I had pretty much marked us down for another playoff missing 8-8 season.

[Galaril]

LMAO still. I woke up this morning to eye who one and realize that playtime really happened and two it was the deciding score. Wow. Yeah that was the first time I can remember seeing some one do something that you can say yup that is why they got fired. ..... The Colts got too cute trying to out Hoodie "The Hoodie". It would have been funny later if the Pats Lind up and really pulled that play off though the formation itself is illegal with not enough players on the line to start with so it would need to be modified but bet the Pats grab that and use it down the road now.

[Kodos]

Yep. We Bill Belichick does dumb shit, it usually works.

[jeff061]

The idea was fine, the execution was horrible. Try to confuse them and gain a mismatch for a couple yards, get them to jump offsides or failing either of those call a timeout and punt. Belichick(and most decent coaches) usually doesn't put things in game that haven't been practiced and executed in practice a few thousand times.

I doubt that's what happened in the Colts camp on that one.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I guess I just can't figure out how the play from the Colts was supposed to work. When at least four defenders are crowded around the football and the offense needs three yards, why jump offsides? It makes absolutely zero sense. If the Colts only needed a foot or two, I can see the Patriots defenders being a little antsy because they'd need an immediate tackle. At some other part of the field, it might make some sense. With fewer yards to go, it might make some sense. If there's even one other blocker, it might make some sense. I'm no football coach, so I'm certainly not claiming to understand it better than the Colts staff does, but I feel for Colts fans who are probably still wondering what the fuck their team was doing.

[CU Tiger]

The "water bucket" or "swinging gate" punt formation has been a staple of high school football for as long as I can remember. I'm shocked someone TRIED it in the NFL.

The play as Ive always seen it is:
If the defense lines up over the ball the center "snaps" the ball laterally and back to an offline player split out who runs for a 1st down.
If the entire D lines up with the split out guys you snap it to the up back who runs for a 1st down.
If the D lines up correctly, as the Pats did there, you motion into a standard punt formation and punt the damn ball.

Again, MOST high schools around here do this every kick (punt or FG/XP) to think an NFL player wasnt going to be prepared for that is crazy.

[Pumpy Tudors]

So we can call last night's game "Swinging Gate-gate"?

[Logan]

Rutgers did that under Schiano on probably half of XP opportunities during the back half of his tenure. I don't think they actually went for two out of it more than a couple times though. Either way, he never tried it during a punt.

His "I'm so smart" stuff related to punts was things like sending your punt block unit out there and sticking with it despite the other team putting its offense on the field, including a split out WR (Chris Henry) uncovered.

I miss him sometimes.

[Kodos]

How do you feel about Rutgers in the Big Ten? Like it? Hate it?

[SirFozzie]

Noticed this on an ESPN.COM story about the Pats game

"(Brady) also did not elaborate when asked by ESPN staffers if he took two footballs from the game as a keepsake, saying only he didn't keep them for himself."

Odds that the game balls are going to Jastremski and McNally (the "Deflators")?

if so, Brady's Troll Level is over 9000...

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

How do you feel about Rutgers in the Big Ten? Like it? Hate it?

Love it. It's all about quality of opponents to me. With no disrespect to these schools, years of "getting up" for UConn, Syracuse, Cincy, etc coming into town just wore out really quickly. There's an entire different buzz around the tailgating lots when those teams are now Ohio State, Michigan, MSU, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. Could that fizzle after 10 years of mediocre results? Possibly. But for now it's much more enjoyable.

I'm realistic about the program. I'm not expecting National Championships, but there's absolutely enough talent locally to compete for the top of even the B1G East eventually. A quick look at recruiting rankings will confirm that. The school is just at such a huge disadvantage vs the top of the division both financially and our overmatched coach compared to some of these other titans. It'll be a little better in a few years when we start pulling in $50 million in revenue, but we won't be gaining on our division mates obviously.

[Arles]

NE has gotten a nice schedule in terms of QBs. Pittsburgh (with no Bell) may end up being the toughest offense they face all season. So far, they faced Tyrod Taylor, Bortles, Weeden, Luck on a bum shoulder and Ben. Here's the QBs they face the rest of the year: Fitzpatrick (twice), Tannehill (twice), Taylor/Manuel, Bradford (if he's still alive), Mariota (also if alive), Cousins/RG3/Thiesmann, Peyton's wobbler, Houston's poo poo platter and Eli. They very well may go 16-0 with slate of QBs - only the Giants look able to score points on any consistent level.

[jeff061]

I don't think the Pats crap schedule is a good thing. I'd rather they get tested before the playoffs.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Kodos

How do you feel about Rutgers in the Big Ten? Like it? Hate it?

As far as Rutgers being a quality university, I like it. It's a good fit academically and traditionally, though it doesn't have the athletic reputation.

But it's too far away. This was a move made for BTN dollars and nothing else.

And 14 teams in a conference is too many. Ten is great, since you can play a round-robin schedule (or eight in conference if you want to balance home/road). Twelve is OK, since your schedule is more balanced. But then you're in two mini-conferences and only have non-division opponents visiting every four years. But with 14, you only get one non-division opponent visiting every year. You might as well be in another conference.

We are headed toward a sea change in college football (which will carry every other sport with it). At some point, these 14-team conferences will start to split. I think we'll end up with a lot of seven- and eight-team division-type conferences. The question is whether these will be major-majors and semi-major majors or whether they will all be balanced.

What we have now is very unstable. All these electrons floating in outer shells, vulnerable to collision and a new molecular structure.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I don't think the Pats crap schedule is a good thing. I'd rather they get tested before the playoffs.

Their total schedule rating (combined opponent record, minus their own influence) is 44-38 (.537), which is solidly above average. Every team can look like crap if you look hard enough.

And as far as great quarterback opponents are concerned, there's only one Aaron Rodgers.

[miked]

I don't understand Washington and Gruden. Is RGIII so entirely terrible that Cousins is the answer? He has not looked good in any game really this season, and yet he is the "starter for the season" or something. I mean, granted RGIII has not looked good, but he has looked at least as good if not better than Cousins and McCoy. Are they really going to pay him all this money to be inactive the entire season?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by jeff061

The idea was fine, the execution was horrible. Try to confuse them and gain a mismatch for a couple yards, get them to jump offsides or failing either of those call a timeout and punt. Belichick(and most decent coaches) usually doesn't put things in game that haven't been practiced and executed in practice a few thousand times.

I doubt that's what happened in the Colts camp on that one.

No, the idea was not fine. Unless the Pats player commits a personal foul or something before the Colts snap the ball there was no way this was going to work. There is no point for the Pats to call a timeout because the Colts were in an illegal formation, ditto for just jumping offsides.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by stevew

Has that play ever worked ever? Didn't Oregon do a bunch of stuff like that

I've seen it work to draw a timeout from the defense a few times, and seen it run a few times out of shotgun when the defense lines up wrong. But the "QB" is no threat to throw the bubble screen if he's under center because he could never get that pass off, and again, the entire right side of team was lined up illegally so it's just terrible coaching. Patriots aren't immune to that though - I remember losing a playoff game to the Jets where the upback (Pat Chung) audibled to a fake punt at our 30 yard line, so I generally hate the idea of even giving a non-regular QB the option to snap the ball "if a look is there". I can only imagine why someone would think it's a good idea to put a non-QB under "center" with a WR deciding whether to snap the ball.

Speaking of Pats special teams, fingers crossed Slater isn't done for the year but it didn't look good.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We are headed toward a sea change in college football (which will carry every other sport with it). At some point, these 14-team conferences will start to split. I think we'll end up with a lot of seven- and eight-team division-type conferences. The question is whether these will be major-majors and semi-major majors or whether they will all be balanced.

That's the million dollar question - do they split back into 8-10 team conferences or go to 4 16-team super conferences and split from the other 60 D1 schools? Do you really think Ohio State or Michigan wants to split off into a 7-team conference with MSU, Wisconsin, PSU, and let's say Iowa and Minnesota? No, you need the Indiana's and Purdue's of the world because otherwise the good teams can't win 9 games every year.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

No, the idea was not fine. Unless the Pats player commits a personal foul or something before the Colts snap the ball there was no way this was going to work. There is no point for the Pats to call a timeout because the Colts were in an illegal formation, ditto for just jumping offsides.

Well yes, I'd consider lining up illegally to be part of the execution and that certainly voids everything.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That's the million dollar question - do they split back into 8-10 team conferences or go to 4 16-team super conferences and split from the other 60 D1 schools? Do you really think Ohio State or Michigan wants to split off into a 7-team conference with MSU, Wisconsin, PSU, and let's say Iowa and Minnesota? No, you need the Indiana's and Purdue's of the world because otherwise the good teams can't win 9 games every year.

The billion-dollar question is whether the Indianas and Purdues of this world will be part of it. One way this could go is four eight-team conferences, all made up of the top revenue-producing schools.

When the Big Ten started choosing money over tradition, all bets were off. We don't know the future, but the current structure is very unstable.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Their total schedule rating (combined opponent record, minus their own influence) is 44-38 (.537), which is solidly above average. Every team can look like crap if you look hard enough.

And as far as great quarterback opponents are concerned, there's only one Aaron Rodgers.

I think our schedule is average, but heavily slanted towards defensive teams especially since Bell, Romo & Bryant have all been out vs us. Denver, Jets 2x, Bills 2x, etc. Only AFC team we "avoid" is Cincy, but I still need to see Dalton win a prime time game before getting too worried. NFC-wise, we avoid GB, but other than that who's been great? Arizona was until the 2nd half today, you can't say Seattle at this point, and even with the difference in record I'm not convinced Atlanta and Carolina are any better than Philly and the Giants.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The billion-dollar question is whether the Indianas and Purdues of this world will be part of it. One way this could go is four eight-team conferences, all made up of the top revenue-producing schools.

When the Big Ten started choosing money over tradition, all bets were off. We don't know the future, but the current structure is very unstable.

And I think they definitely will be. Just look at Michigan this year - they look like a legitimate top 15 team, but they're 0-2 vs schools who'd be in a top 32 setup and 5-0 vs others. College football has 100+ years of tradition where 2 losses knocks you out of the title picture and I don't think people want a paradigm shift where 9-2 Ohio State vs 8-3 Michigan is a marquee game of top 10 teams. You see it now with the SEC West - even if Arkansas might be a top 40 team they can't get a winning season and Bielema will likely be fired unless that changes real soon. Just like boxers CFB teams need those cupcake wins so all the good teams can have gaudy records when they meet.

And as much as the Big Ten chased the money over tradition, I do think there's been some push back from alums and the Big Ten will not expand to 16 unless forced to or their dream duo of ND & Texas asks to join.

[Solecismic]

The decision on maintaining tradition has been made. Tradition is gone.

Because of parity, we're conditioned to understand that top NFL teams won't be undefeated. If we go to a super-league of four associated conferences, there won't be many undefeated teams (I assume they'll keep the shorter schedule so they can continue to pretend this is amateur football and these are students).

Michigan isn't good enough this year. Part of a super-league means understanding that 8-4 will be a good season and might well mean a berth in the eight-team playoffs.

We're about half-way through this transition, and it could go in many directions.

[Sublime 2]

Originally Posted by Arles

NE has gotten a nice schedule in terms of QBs. Pittsburgh (with no Bell) may end up being the toughest offense they face all season. So far, they faced Tyrod Taylor, Bortles, Weeden, Luck on a bum shoulder and Ben. Here's the QBs they face the rest of the year: Fitzpatrick (twice), Tannehill (twice), Taylor/Manuel, Bradford (if he's still alive), Mariota (also if alive), Cousins/RG3/Thiesmann, Peyton's wobbler, Houston's poo poo platter and Eli. They very well may go 16-0 with slate of QBs - only the Giants look able to score points on any consistent level.

They had 4-5 game stretch last year against some QB studs, and Revis proved invaluable there. I've seen posited that this is one of the reasons they didn't blow the doors off to keep Revis. I doubt that's true, but it's an interesting thought.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The decision on maintaining tradition has been made. Tradition is gone.

Because of parity, we're conditioned to understand that top NFL teams won't be undefeated. If we go to a super-league of four associated conferences, there won't be many undefeated teams (I assume they'll keep the shorter schedule so they can continue to pretend this is amateur football and these are students).

Michigan isn't good enough this year. Part of a super-league means understanding that 8-4 will be a good season and might well mean a berth in the eight-team playoffs.

We're about half-way through this transition, and it could go in many directions.

I think the amateurism debate will force some sort of change way before we get to this point, FWIW.

edit: Or I should say, that will be the driver of this same type of split well before getting over the hurdle of embracing an 8-4 champion.

[SirFozzie]

Maine Football on Twitter: "Hey @Colts, this is how it's done. #BlackBearNation #CAAFB http://t.co/QgokyjOK7m"

[Grover]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Maine Football on Twitter: "Hey @Colts, this is how it's done. #BlackBearNation #CAAFB http://t.co/QgokyjOK7m"

Go Black Bears!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The billion-dollar question is whether the Indianas and Purdues of this world will be part of it. One way this could go is four eight-team conferences, all made up of the top revenue-producing schools.

I think there's at least a ten-million dollar question about whether they should be part of it. (And there's a lot of schools in that category, I'm certainly not picking on the IUs and PUs of the world there).

But could we maybe get to a top 48 instead of top 32? 16 teams to the post-season, about 1/3rd feels a lot better to me than something like half.

I mean, if that's the route this hypothetically takes and all that. I have no desire for there to ever BE a 16 team CFB playoff but if that's part of this then that would certainly ring better to me.

[TroyF]

Some random things I've seen in the thread:

Steelers: I think this is the team everyone is sleeping on. The defense has played much better than I thought they would. If Big Ben is healthy, that offense is going to be unbelievable. If the defense can get a few stops, they are going to be simply brutal to play in the playoffs. People will think I'm completely nuts, but I believe this team can win the AFC with a healthy Ben.

Patriots/Colts: Worst execution of a fake I have ever seen. Patriots win, but they don't win by 75. I guess WANTING to win by 75 and actually being able to do it are two different things? Everyone is all over the Pats, Cincy has been the best team I've seen this season.

Seattle: Nobody is talking about it, but I think that team has some serious chemistry issues now. They don't look cohesive at all and it's showing up in fourth quarters. If it isn't for a horrific call, this team is 1-5 and in serious trouble. As it is, 10-0 from this point on probably will not get them home field and it may not even get them a bye. The NFC path to the title isn't going through Seattle this year.

Denver: Only three reasons anyone keeps talking about Denver right now: 1) They are unbeaten. 2) The defense is incredible 3) Some people believe Manning will figure it out.
Well, the true test of that is on the way. The Broncos play the Packers, @ Colts, Patriots, @ Steelers and Bengals as 5 of their last 10 games. (other games are the Bears, Chargers twice, Chiefs and Raiders) Put up a 2-3 against the first group and I'll give Denver a chance in the postseason. With how bad the rest of the AFC West is, it will be hard for Denver to lose that division now.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by miked

I don't understand Washington and Gruden. Is RGIII so entirely terrible that Cousins is the answer? He has not looked good in any game really this season, and yet he is the "starter for the season" or something. I mean, granted RGIII has not looked good, but he has looked at least as good if not better than Cousins and McCoy. Are they really going to pay him all this money to be inactive the entire season?

I don't think they have any choice to be honest. Griffin is done in DC. It makes no sense to through him out there and leave yourself open to Griffin getting injured and the commitments that come with that. I think they are really regretting not releasing him before the season started. With Griffin gone, I think they could make a rational decision about Cousins instead some of the silliness Gruden is engaging in now. I agree with the decision to commit to Cousins for the season though. Pick your QB, do everything possible to put your QB in the best situation possible including bringing a backup that is the clear #2 (Colt McCoy is too good in this situation) and after 16 games see where you are at. It's what they should have done with Griffin and it is what they should do for Cousins.

[cuervo72]

That was a damned efficient and effective drive by the Giants.

[BillJasper]

WATCH: Colts' all-time bonehead fake punt recreated in 'Tecmo Bowl' - CBSSports.com

[EagleFan]

Weak roughing the passer call there.

[Atocep]

The best news today regarding that play was finding out that they've been practicing that play since last season and Pagano defending the play by saying he'd do it again given the opportunity.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The best news today regarding that play was finding out that they've been practicing that play since last season and Pagano defending the play by saying he'd do it again given the opportunity.

I wonder if Pagano is simply burned out and looking to be fired at this point.

[Julio Riddols]

Maybe if you go deep shotgun and throw it wide immediately it could be an interesting idea.

[bhlloy]

I don't have any idea how NFL coaches consistently have such issues managing the clock at the end of the half

[cuervo72]

I should be happy with a 10-point lead, but I feel like the Eagles failed to capitalize on a few things.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I don't have any idea how NFL coaches consistently have such issues managing the clock at the end of the half

I gotta think its so much harder than Madden and we just don't realize it

[bhlloy]

Coaching staffs of 20 and nobody is so indispensable that they can't be solely responsible for that in the last 2 minutes? Have the fricking strength and conditioning coach do it, what else is he doing on game day? Or one of the seemingly hundreds of towel waving guys on the end of the bench.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The best news today regarding that play was finding out that they've been practicing that play since last season and Pagano defending the play by saying he'd do it again given the opportunity.

Maybe he needs Ryan Tannehill's scout team.

[EagleFan]

That was a lousy way to start the second half, almost a nice start too.

[EagleFan]

Manning has been under attack. Good pressure by the defense.

[EagleFan]

Almost an intercepted intentional grounding.

[sabotai]

Every season, the Giants and Eagles seem intent on playing at least one game that's a candidate for worse played game of the season. The tradition continues.

[Julio Riddols]

Eagles seem to have kind of righted their ship the past few weeks. Making a run at a weak division at this point, maybe Kelly will be vindicated when it is all said and done.

[Suicane75]

I think they're a 9-7 or 10-6 team in the best case scenario. I know their offense isn't predicated on it, but not having a deep speed threat at WR is going to hurt them, I think.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Is it just me, or are there very few really good teams in the NFL right now? Looking around the standings, it seems like there are only three teams that are unquestionably in that top tier:

Green Bay
New England
Cincinnati

You've then got a handful of teams who are either close or have question marks:

Denver
Carolina
Atlanta
Pittsburgh
Arizona
New York Jets

And honestly, everyone else looks either downright terrible or just simply not all that good. Probably just anecdotal at this point, but it just seems like there aren't that many good teams this year.