NFL playoff thread

[LongTimeListener]

It's an indication -- not a factual declaration but a pretty strong suggestion -- that he had the deck stacked in his favor those games and let them get away. (In two of those games, the Colts had hammered the same team during the regular season.)

"he" let them get away.

He played quite poorly in all three games. If all you have is this silly little semantic point, you're losing.

 

[outofplace]

It's an indication -- not a factual declaration but a pretty strong suggestion -- that he had the deck stacked in his favor those games and let them get away. (In two of those games, the Colts had hammered the same team during the regular season.)

The comparison to the regular-season games is very simplistic there. One of those occasions you mentioned was 2005, when the Colts beat a struggling Steelers team soundly early in the season, then lost to Pittsburgh in the playoffs. The biggest change there was the play of the opponent. That regular season game in Indy was Roethlisberger's first back from an injury and it came in the middle of a three-game losing streak. The playoff game was part of an eight-game winning streak by Pittsburgh that went right on through to winning the Super Bowl. Without that context, it's an unfair comparison.

LTL claims that he played poorly in all three games. Manning completed 22 of 38 passes for 290 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions in the playoff loss to Pittsburgh. He would be remembered for leading the team on a great comeback if Mike Vanderjagt hadn't choked on the tying field goal attempt in the final seconds.

It is a little misleading because Manning was also the beneficiary of one of the worst instant replay calls I've ever seen taking an interception away from Troy Polamalu, but no moreso than to suggest there wasn't a big difference in Pittsburgh's play from the first meeting to the second.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed... I'm not on here a ton during the weekend...

I was talking to a friend who is a Packers fan yesterday and he was bitching about how their defense broke down against the Niners. My contention was that Kaepernick's performance was an all-timer, one of those performances we'll still be talking about 20 years from now and it wasn't that the Packers defense was that bad, but Kaepernick was that good...

To me there were three things about that game ...

1) I heard in the aftermath that the Packers hadn't faced a read-option guy all year. Wilson wasn't running it early, right? So it is very difficult to pick up on if you're new to it.

2) Nobody, and this has to include Jim Harbaugh, thought Kaepernick was that fast. On the 60-yarder, I think the Packers were at the point where they were guessing and then figuring they'd give up a 12- or 15-yarder, but he blew past the lanes before their cornerbacks could get there. Holy crap. Haven't seen a stopwatch but it looked RG3-like.

3) When I thought it was really over was on his TD pass in the end zone on the slant. The Packers played that ball perfectly, and if he was a little slower or 6 inches off-target, it's incomplete.

So dominating. And I don't think Green Bay's defense is all that bad. Maybe Atlanta has some advantage because they just dealt with Wilson, but they didn't deal with him all that well.

 

[Azrael]

If only Ted Williams had one a couple Super Bowls.

 

[93Devil]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed... I'm not on here a ton during the weekend...

I was talking to a friend who is a Packers fan yesterday and he was bitching about how their defense broke down against the Niners. My contention was that Kaepernick's performance was an all-timer, one of those performances we'll still be talking about 20 years from now and it wasn't that the Packers defense was that bad, but Kaepernick was that good...

My coaching buddy said after he watched the game, he started diagramming plays for hours.

He said the 49ers did something running that option read that he had not seen before. Something about the way the 49ers were pulling guards and it confused the heck out of the Packers. Matthews had no idea whether to take on the block (Keap would then keep it around the edge) or try to avoid the pulling block (between the tackles). And half the time when Matthews was trying to avoid the block, he was getting nailed anyway.

Basically the 49ers altered the option-read and the Packers never adjusted. You also need to have good enough linemen to do this, and the 49ers do.

 

[Double Down]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed... I'm not on here a ton during the weekend...

I was talking to a friend who is a Packers fan yesterday and he was bitching about how their defense broke down against the Niners. My contention was that Kaepernick's performance was an all-timer, one of those performances we'll still be talking about 20 years from now and it wasn't that the Packers defense was that bad, but Kaepernick was that good...

Yeah, I don't think the Packers defense played particularly great, but he just provides soooo many match-up problems when he's playing well. When he turned the corner on that run, you just knew the Packers were forked. If you have a guy who can avoid pressure AND deliver the ball accurately on the move or from the pocket, it's going to look like a video game. You can clearly see why Harbaugh wanted this. He's a match-up nightmare when he's playing well. Harbaugh isn't trying to win games with a hand tied behind his back anymore.

 

[amraeder]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed... I'm not on here a ton during the weekend...

I was talking to a friend who is a Packers fan yesterday and he was bitching about how their defense broke down against the Niners. My contention was that Kaepernick's performance was an all-timer, one of those performances we'll still be talking about 20 years from now and it wasn't that the Packers defense was that bad, but Kaepernick was that good...

A little of both. Generally I agree that it was an all-timer. But the Packers fans can still be upset about the team's refusal to mantain any semblence of inside-contain when they rushed on third downs.

 

[RickStain]

It's an indication -- not a factual declaration but a pretty strong suggestion -- that he had the deck stacked in his favor those games and let them get away. (In two of those games, the Colts had hammered the same team during the regular season.)

"he" let them get away.

He played quite poorly in all three games. If all you have is this silly little semantic point, you're losing.

"He played quite poorly" is a fair criticism.

"His team lost" is not.

As long as you stick to the reasonable assessment of his play, then you aren't going to hear a peep from me. I'm perfectly willing to accept the argument that there's something in Manning's style of play that doesn't work well in the playoffs. "His team lost" just isn't an argument that supports it.

 

[sportbook]

Ravens offense against New England first time they played this season in Baltimore: 28 first downs, 503 total yards, Flacco threw for 383(28-of-39) with 3 TDs (1 pick) and Rice ran for 100 and scored a touchdown. Flacco's put up really big numbers the last three times the two teams have played one another.

 

[LongTimeListener]

LTL claims that he played poorly in all three games. Manning completed 22 of 38 passes for 290 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions in the playoff loss to Pittsburgh. He would be remembered for leading the team on a great comeback if Mike Vanderjagt hadn't choked on the tying field goal attempt in the final seconds.

And this is the mistake of looking at the stat sheet and not remembering the game. Manning was terrible for the first three quarters as the Steelers went ahead 21-3. He threw nothing but incomplete passes on his first two drives, as the Steelers took a 14-0 lead, and he was jumpy all day. And then they got the ball back in the fourth quarter with a chance to take the lead and he took two sacks, and then they got it back after the Bus' fumble and he threw two incomplete passes to leave Vanderjagt going for the 46-yarder. Be comforted by the stat line if you like, but he was not good in that game.

 

[YGBFKM]

It's an indication -- not a factual declaration but a pretty strong suggestion -- that he had the deck stacked in his favor those games and let them get away. (In two of those games, the Colts had hammered the same team during the regular season.)

"he" let them get away.

He played quite poorly in all three games. If all you have is this silly little semantic point, you're losing.

"He played quite poorly" is a fair criticism.

"His team lost" is not.

As long as you stick to the reasonable assessment of his play, then you aren't going to hear a peep from me. I'm perfectly willing to accept the argument that there's something in Manning's style of play that doesn't work well in the playoffs. "His team lost" just isn't an argument that supports it.

Your bamboozlement is preternatural.

 

[93Devil]

And the evolution in NFL football is amazing. Letters pointed it out earlier in the thread, but when you think about it...

Blitzing in the 1970s brought on...
The West Coast offense and the Run and Shoot in the 1980s and they brought on...
The Zone Blitz and Cover-Two in the 1990s and 200s which brought on...
The Patriot offense of double tight ends in the late 2000s which brought on...
Man coverage and ultra quick linebackers in 2010, which brought on...
The Option-read in 2012, which will bring on...
We have not gotten there yet.

It takes a few years for teams to cycle out personnel to match the latest thing, but I would expect bigger, stronger, blitzing corners and zone defenses to combat this new offense.