What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

NFL 2022-23: How About A Lions vs. Jaguars Super Bowl?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think that was Cousins. He was looking at Hock from the get-go. That play was called. O’Connell got in his own way a few times in that game. Like someone mentioned elsewhere though, the line wasn’t giving Cousins enough time to look down field anyway.
 
state of hockey said:
I don’t think that was Cousins. He was looking at Hock from the get-go. That play was called. O’Connell got in his own way a few times in that game. Like someone mentioned elsewhere though, the line wasn’t giving Cousins enough time to look down field anyway.
Click to expand...

Pretty common pet peeve, there. 3rd or 4th down, and the intended receiver doesn't even get to the line to gain. Duh. Not all receivers can deke out whoever is covering them, and knowing the down, most defenders focus on tackling. It's pretty annoying how many times that happens- but it's worst on 4th down when it's the last chance to win.
 
Besides the fact they didn't want Buffalo or Cincinnati possibly playing two straight neutral site games, is there a reason why next week shouldn't be a neutral site between the Bills and Bengals? Yes, they played the same amount of games, but the missing game is the one they were playing against each other. If Cincinnati won, they would have been the 2 seed.

They should be meeting in Pittsburgh next week.
 
Spartanforlife4 said:
Besides the fact they didn't want Buffalo or Cincinnati possibly playing two straight neutral site games, is there a reason why next week shouldn't be a neutral site between the Bills and Bengals? Yes, they played the same amount of games, but the missing game is the one they were playing against each other. If Cincinnati won, they would have been the 2 seed.

They should be meeting in Pittsburgh next week.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think they feel a CCG is the one to do neutral if you have to, otherwise I agree this specific matchup should clearly be a neutral site. Hell, they could over promo the everloving shit out of it and get Hamlin to appear at it and milk it for all its worth if they wanted to if they make it a neutral game. But I think they want it in Buffalo with all of the Bills mafia there and they only want one neutral game since that means less fans there and they want a packed house for this "rematch".
 
Spartanforlife4 said:
Besides the fact they didn't want Buffalo or Cincinnati possibly playing two straight neutral site games, is there a reason why next week shouldn't be a neutral site between the Bills and Bengals? Yes, they played the same amount of games, but the missing game is the one they were playing against each other. If Cincinnati won, they would have been the 2 seed.

They should be meeting in Pittsburgh next week.
Click to expand...

Mike brown has been a cheap fuck for years. Nobody likes him.

they can go to Buffalo as far as the Jerry jones’ of the nfl are concerned
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
Minnesota greatly overachieved in an awful division. They are probably the favorites to win the NFC North again next year. Chicago is probably another year away (although, they have the resources (both draft picks and salary cap) to make a big turnaround). Green Bay is a bit of a wild card, but I think Rodgers is washed (assuming he comes back). Detroit...well, the Lions are not allowed to have nice things, so the Vikings might win the division again by default. Minnesota's defense can't get any worse.
Click to expand...

I don't think many long-term Vikes fans such as myself feel that result was either unfair or surprising. They weren't nearly as good as their record suggested. As FS 23 said, awful division and a huge amount of luck got them there. Had they won, they would have eventually lost ugly, probably to Philly.

Same can be said for TB, though Brady brings a plus factor Cousins lacks. Should be some good football from here on out.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
Minnesota greatly overachieved in an awful division. They are probably the favorites to win the NFC North again next year. Chicago is probably another year away (although, they have the resources (both draft picks and salary cap) to make a big turnaround). Green Bay is a bit of a wild card, but I think Rodgers is washed (assuming he comes back). Detroit...well, the Lions are not allowed to have nice things, so the Vikings might win the division again by default. Minnesota's defense can't get any worse.
Click to expand...

yes, but. Of the 5 losses, 2 of them were in division. And regular season, 2 of them were out. They were 4-2 in the division, and 9-2 out. As weak as the conference was, it wasn't the reason they got the #2 seed with 13 wins. I think what happened was that it took most of the season to figure out how to dominate them, and then a kind of weak NYG offense could dominate the D.
 
Funny, to me ESPN's talking heads just confirmed my point while trying to make Daniel Jones an MVP QB. They praised him for how quickly he bailed on passing and went to running. But if you watch, Minnesota didn't have anyone spying on him, and the closest player was normally 8-10 yards down field. He barely made a fake passing move to keep them back, so he had a ton of space to run thanks to the Vikings just giving it to him. Just as bad, it was normally one backer who he had to beat- which isn't terribly hard when you have that much space.

And now they are giving the NYG all of the credit for the call that resulted in a pass that was 5 yards short from a first down. Wait, what? Sure, they got pressure, but the play call didn't account for it (which they should have in blocking) and the routes were, well...

Again, it just looks that the NFL learned how to beat the Vikings, and the Giants just went with it.
 
MichVandal said:
yes, but. Of the 5 losses, 2 of them were in division. And regular season, 2 of them were out. They were 4-2 in the division, and 9-2 out. As weak as the conference was, it wasn't the reason they got the #2 seed with 13 wins. I think what happened was that it took most of the season to figure out how to dominate them, and then a kind of weak NYG offense could dominate the D.
Click to expand...

They were the 3 seed. They lost the 2 seed by getting destroyed by the Packers in Lambeau.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
They were the 3 seed. They lost the 2 seed by getting destroyed by the Packers in Lambeau.
Click to expand...

I get that. But my point still stands. 13 wins is pretty impressive and they still lost 2 games in a "weak" division. So the "weak" division didn't hand them a 13 win season and a pretty strong #3 seed (when you look at the record of the #4 seed).

If they went 6-0 in the division, and then 7-4 out, sure- they were handed the record by the weak division. But they were 4-2 and 9-2 respectively. Which is pretty darned balanced.

The Lions and Packers learned from mistakes and other teams how to dominate them in their second game. The NYG learned, too. I never saw them getting far in the playoffs- they had a very exploitable D. Minnesota didn't recognize their weakness and fix it- that's why they sucked at the end of the season.

But to just brush them off because of a "weak" conference isn't all that accurate.
 
MichVandal said:
I get that. But my point still stands. 13 wins is pretty impressive and they still lost 2 games in a "weak" division. So the "weak" division didn't hand them a 13 win season and a pretty strong #3 seed (when you look at the record of the #4 seed).

If they went 6-0 in the division, and then 7-4 out, sure- they were handed the record by the weak division. But they were 4-2 and 9-2 respectively. Which is pretty darned balanced.

The Lions and Packers learned from mistakes and other teams how to dominate them in their second game. The NYG learned, too. I never saw them getting far in the playoffs- they had a very exploitable D. Minnesota didn't recognize their weakness and fix it- that's why they sucked at the end of the season.

But to just brush them off because of a "weak" conference isn't all that accurate.
Click to expand...

Good points, but I think those of us who watched them throughout the year saw them get thoroughly destroyed when they lost and win many games from just plain luck. Defense ranked near the bottom and negative net? Nice to see the improvements this year, but they have a ways to go to be legit SB contenders, IMO.
 
They went 11-0 in one score games in the regular season. Everyone knows that's not sustainable. If they go 6-5 in those next season, that's 7-10.

Edit: Math is hard
 
Last edited:
burd said:
It is when you're working the upper levels, as you are.
Click to expand...

Returning to the mean is closer to 60-75% for most.

Records in one score games for 10 win teams

Chiefs 6-3
Bills 6-3
Bengals 4-3
Eagles 6-1
Cowboys 4-3
Ravens 6-6
Chargers 7-5
 
Tom really needs to retire. Tampa may come back, but he's missing wide open receivers- and then blaming them. And then that INT in the endzone? Seriously? Come on, find someone who is really open. Let alone forcing the ball into quadruple coverage when there was a guy right in front of you. Just retire already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top