NFL Week 10 thread

[poindexter]

I like the weekly threads without the silly name of some has-been attached to them.

 

[Neutral Corner]

I think the Cowboys know they'll struggle to beat even the Jags with Weeden out there, so I assume Jerrah is freaked out about a possible three-game losing streak and Romo will play.

He should have thought of that before releasing Orton and signing Weeden to back up a QB coming off of back surgery.

If Weeden starts, they should just give the ball to Murray every single play.

The head coach of my fantasy team agrees wholeheartedly.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Wasn't Orton going to retire rather than play there?

He played it smart. I think he told them he was going to retire and they released him.

I read something that said he and Romo or he and Garrett didn't get along.

Then let him retire. He sign a contract and was perfectly happy to collect all those weeks he was just holdoing a clipboard. They got played, lost him for nothing, and they're paying for it.

It wasn't quite that simple.

Here's a quickie synopsis:

Awesome: http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20140715-source-dallas-cowboys-to-release-backup-quarterback-kyle-orton.ece

Only because this means that Brandon Weeden could be the Cowboys QB.

A man can dream....a man can dream....

I wonder if that means Romo is healthy or if it's simply a cap issue. If memory serves, Orton was one of the highest-paid backups.

It means Orton doesn't want to play anymore, but he didn't want to simply retire as a member of the Cowboys because he would have had to pay them the prorated portion of his signing bonus -- $3 million or so. So he just stopped showing up, hoping they would release him.

Dallas was faced with having to carry Orton on the roster (taking up a valuable roster spot as well as his salary on their cap) while Orton either didn't show up at all or half-assed it (at best) through the season just to keep from having to pay back the bonus money. They were considering playing hardball but in the end decided it was easier to just cut him loose and let him keep the cash. It's better for team morale, too -- it would be tough for a coach to lecture his team about commitment when there's a guy in the room who obviously doesn't want to be there.

Why couldn't they have suspended him for not showing up? He wanted to not play, but keep the money he had been paid to play this season. That's pretty simple.

 

[RickStain]

Jay Cutler isn't the reason the Bears are mediocre.

Peyton Manning in his prime was better than Tom Brady in his.

The running game is overrated, passing is all that matters.

Going for two early, and thus knowing whether or not you will need more later, is a higher percentage play than waiting until the last minute.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Marcus Lattimore retires, two years after what amounted a career-ending injury while he was at South Carolina.

49rs.co/JaQwWQ

If someone wants to sue to get the NFL's three-years-out-of-high-school restriction lifted, he would be their test case. Guy dominated the SEC as a true freshman, and no one could honestly say he wasn't ready for the NFL then.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

Jay Cutler isn't the reason the Bears are mediocre.

Peyton Manning in his prime was better than Tom Brady in his.

The running game is overrated, passing is all that matters.

Going for two early, and thus knowing whether or not you will need more later, is a higher percentage play than waiting until the last minute.

Certainly not the only one.

 

[RecoveringJournalist]

Jay Cutler isn't the reason the Bears are mediocre.

Peyton Manning in his prime was better than Tom Brady in his.

The running game is overrated, passing is all that matters.

Going for two early, and thus knowing whether or not you will need more later, is a higher percentage play than waiting until the last minute.

He might be the biggest reason, but he's not the only reason.
True.
False, just ask the Cowboys. Clock management is huge, especially when you need to give your defense a rest.
I covered a well-known college coach who went for two a lot, usually when there was no reason whatsoever to do it. I think he did it just to amuse himself. I asked him about it after a game once I think the touchdown made it 26-3 late in the fourth and he went for two. He said, "I wanted two points there."

Uh... OK...

 

[LongTimeListener]

If you're going to go for two early, you might as well just do it on every conversion. Which would actually be kind of a nice idea that I'd like to see.

I'm still waiting for the "never punt" strategy to hit the NFL or at least major college.

 

[Steak Snabler]

I'm still waiting for the "never punt" strategy to hit the NFL or at least major college.

Belichick tried that a few years ago against the Colts, and people acted like he'd wiped his ass with the American flag.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'm still waiting for the "never punt" strategy to hit the NFL or at least major college.

Belichick tried that a few years ago against the Colts, and people acted like he'd wiped his ass with the American flag.

I remember that. I was all for it -- it was at a time that giving the ball back to Manning meant certain death.

I'm talking about a systematic decision to never punt, though, based on those studies that show how important possessions are and the impact of voluntarily giving them up. A high school team tried the no-punt thing and did well. It would just be so great to see the team stay out there on fourth-and-six from your own 30.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

I'd advise doing that on the road due to fan reaction the first time it fails.

 

[JC]

It could work 80% of the time and all people will remember is when it doesn't.