2015 NFL Season-Now with Playoff Talk

[DCarp1231]

Everyone knows the Pro Bowl has been on the decline for the past few seasons. Although, I do like the unconferenced Pro Bowl. I had always thought there was a rule where every team (except for the Superbowl teams) had to have at least one player participate in the "All Star" game. Apparently not considering there won't even be any Redskins players in this year's game. If I'm not mistaken, I didn't see any Ravens players either. The Redskins did have LT Trent Williams selected to the Pro Bowl. TE Jordan Reed and LB Ryan Kerrigan were chosen as alternates. Some how some way after a record setting number (can't remember the exact number) of players withdrew (including the Panthers 13 selections) Reed nor Kerrigan were chosen to take the place of the withdrawn players.

 

To me, the Redskins had at least five pro bowl players. The five are Bashaud Breeland, Kirk Cousins, Ryan Kerrigan, Jordan Reed, and Trent Williams yet none of these players (with Williams being the exception) were chosen as replacement when they clearly had better years than the actual replacements. An example of this is Tyrod Taylor being chosen over Cousins. Maybe it's just bias speaking, but this whole season has seemed a little fishy in terms of how the Redskins have been treated. 

[2001mark]

I quit the Pro Bowl once it quit being the week after the SB.  I actually used to love watching it.  

[Magnus]

Whether or not the Pro Bowl is of any significance, I still have cause to laugh at what I am about to post. (link)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...excuse me, let me catch my breath...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ‪#‎CHEATERSNEVERPROSPER‬
 

[infrared41]

12 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Everyone knows the Pro Bowl has been on the decline for the past few seasons. Although, I do like the unconferenced Pro Bowl. I had always thought there was a rule where every team (except for the Superbowl teams) had to have at least one player participate in the "All Star" game. Apparently not considering there won't even be any Redskins players in this year's game. If I'm not mistaken, I didn't see any Ravens players either. The Redskins did have LT Trent Williams selected to the Pro Bowl. TE Jordan Reed and LB Ryan Kerrigan were chosen as alternates. Some how some way after a record setting number (can't remember the exact number) of players withdrew (including the Panthers 13 selections) Reed nor Kerrigan were chosen to take the place of the withdrawn players.

 

 

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that was never a rule with the Pro Bowl. 

[Sykotyk]

10 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that was never a rule with the Pro Bowl. 

Correct. Baseball had that rule, I believe. But, I know for a fact the NFL never did. There was a few times the Browns didn't have a participant.

[rams80]

16 minutes ago, Magnus said:

Whether or not the Pro Bowl is of any significance, I still have cause to laugh at what I am about to post. (link)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...excuse me, let me catch my breath...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ‪#‎CHEATERSNEVERPROSPER‬
 

 

*Encourages NFL to take a cue from the NHL*

[FiddySicks]

14 hours ago, rams80 said:

 

*Encourages NFL to take a cue from the NHL*

 

After all the Tom Brady nonsense last off season, could you even imagine what he'd do if they tried to dock him a game check for skipping the all star game? 

[Sport]

21 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Correct. Baseball had that rule, I believe. But, I know for a fact the NFL never did. There was a few times the Browns didn't have a participant.

Many a year I watched the Pro Bowl as a kid waiting to see a tiger striped helmet and never did. 

[Rockstar Matt]

I'm gonna Ice Cap this:

 

On 1/27/2016 at 6:01 PM, See Red said:

 

Regarding Harris, he's been considered one of the best in the league for about three years now.  Here's a couple of articles about him from Pro Football Focus, one in which they rated him the league's 4th best player entering this season.  It went J.J. Watt, Aaron Rodgers, Justin Houston, then Chris Harris. Suffice it to say, when a guy garners top-five-in-the-league talk, average to above average probably isn't a sufficient assessment. Given that Talibs ability isn't in question and their third corner Roby rates out better than most teams #2's, I'm not sure my saying they have a great secondary is up for debate.  

That's fine and dandy about Chris Harris and I may have been wrong about my assumption of Denver's secondary, but that secondary is injured. They won't be at their absolute best.

 

Quote

Also, "they only beat New England by two," even with the qualifiers, sounds pretty foolish. 

It doesn't sound foolish at all considering it's a cold hard fact. The Broncos only won by two. They let New England drive into the red zone, three times in the 4th, also a fact. If they (meaning NE) kicked a FG on at least one of those first two drives, the Patriots win that football game.

 

Quote

A better offense might be able to take advantage of Denver injuries where New England didn't. Fine, but Carolina isn't better than a healthy Patriots offense.

Now that's just silly man. Carolina's offense is better than New England's offense. They have been the whole season and don't forget that despite having the best offense this year, Carolina is still missing their #1 WR. And again, New England's offense wasn't healthy.

 

Quote

You're acting like the Patriots are a franchise that's just happy to get a championship game. It's insane.

Nice assumptions there, bud. To this, I respond with this great quote:

"You're clearly not capable of seeing things objectively when it comes to the Cowboys Broncos -- in the future to save you the effort of having to type, how about we just assume what side you're taking?"

 

For the record, I don't have a dog in this Super Bowl and I'll be happy with the outcome no matter who wins the Super Bowl. I'd be thrilled to see Ware win his first Super Bowl and happy for Peyton if he wins a Super Bowl in his final professional game. On the flip side, I'd be happy for Carolina if they won their first Super Bowl along with Cam finally shutting up all of his naysayers. 

 

 

[BBTV]

The Eagles are a disaster.

 

They are hiring a head of personnel (NOT a "GM"), but hired a coach first, and have signed 4 players to long-term deals (3 off them big deals) before making the hire, which indicates that douchebag "cap expert" Howie Roseman is totally back in charge, and the "head" personnel will report to him.  Doug Pederson is a douchebag yes-man, and the future of the franchise is in the hands of an accountant and a bad movie producer.  

 

If I was a fan of the Giants, Cowboys, or Washington, I'd be pretty happy these days.

[See Red]

4 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

I'm gonna Ice Cap this:

 

That's fine and dandy about Chris Harris and I may have been wrong about my assumption of Denver's secondary, but that secondary is injured. They won't be at their absolute best.

 

 

Their secondary is really no more injured than it has been.  Ward's ankle has been an issue since prior to the Bengals game and Ward has two weeks to nurse a pretty minor knee issue.

 

Quote

It doesn't sound foolish at all considering it's a cold hard fact. The Broncos only won by two. They let New England drive into the red zone, three times in the 4th, also a fact. If they (meaning NE) kicked a FG on at least one of those first two drives, the Patriots win that football game.

 

It sounds foolish because New England is good.  Again, in saying they only beat New England by two, you're acting as if New England isn't any good.  The last part is pure speculation.

 

Quote

 

Now that's just silly man. Carolina's offense is better than New England's offense. They have been the whole season and don't forget that despite having the best offense this year, Carolina is still missing their #1 WR. And again, New England's offense wasn't healthy.

 

 

They haven't been, though.  You're going by PPG -- which is fine, but isn't all-telling.  It ignores a lot, like how much Carolina's league lead in turnovers might have affected offensive production through field position.  Beyond that, you're comparing Carolina to, in part, a New England team that wasn't healthy.  The New England offense was completely different with Julian Edelman.  33 PPG with, 23 PPG without.  With a healthy Edelman, there's no reason to think they don't finish as the top offense in football.  So sure, if you pretend that Denver was playing against week 14 New England, then sure, they weren't as good.  They weren't, though.  Edelman played.  New England with him vs New England without him isn't even close.

 

Quote

 

Nice assumptions there, bud. To this, I respond with this great quote:

"You're clearly not capable of seeing things objectively when it comes to the Cowboys Broncos -- in the future to save you the effort of having to type, how about we just assume what side you're taking?"

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not capable of seeing objectively?  I've said the following:

"Where Carolina is going to win is with their front seven against the Broncos offensive line.  Peyton looks relatively fine but he's no longer capable of playing at a high enough level to mask a bad offensive line and I can't see the running game getting anything going.  I think Denver keeps it close, but Carolina makes it look a little more lopsided late."

 

"I think Carolina wins the game -- maybe by two scores"

 

"I expect a close game that you just, as it goes, feel like Denver won't win."

 

I'm a Broncos fan that's predicted Carolina wins pretty relatively comfortably.  That's being pretty :censored:ing objective.  You, as I recall, were defending a call against the Giants (benefitting Dallas, obviously), that was so bad it warranted the NFL admitting it was a blown call after the game.  By comparison, arguing that a player that was considered one of the five best in football coming into the season isn't average is not such a biased argument to make.

[Kramerica Industries]

It's also just a ridiculous assumption to say if New England kicks a FG down 20-12 that they would have gone on to win the game. Game decision A affects Game decision B which effects Game decision C, so on, and so forth. The game may well have turned out much different at 20-15 with 5:00 to play. Come on; I thought we all were well aware of the fallacy of the pre-determined outcome by now.

[rams80]

42 minutes ago, Kramerica Industries said:

It's also just a ridiculous assumption to say if New England kicks a FG down 20-12 that they would have gone on to win the game. Game decision A affects Game decision B which effects Game decision C, so on, and so forth. The game may well have turned out much different at 20-15 with 5:00 to play. Come on; I thought we all were well aware of the fallacy of the pre-determined outcome by now.

 

Can't speak for the Patriots offense, but I'm not sure what Denver does differently on the subsequent possession.

[2001mark]

1 hour ago, Kramerica Industries said:

It's also just a ridiculous assumption to say if New England kicks a FG down 20-12 that they would have gone on to win the game. Game decision A affects Game decision B which effects Game decision C, so on, and so forth. The game may well have turned out much different at 20-15 with 5:00 to play. Come on; I thought we all were well aware of the fallacy of the pre-determined outcome by now.

Nate Silver's site or whatever points out 32 plays more significant to the Patriots' loss than Gostkowski's missed PAT.  Not surprising considering that only made it a 1 point game very early.  I get that he apologized for it, yet to suggest that it was his fault they lost is invalid.  

As for 4th downs, & as a Patriots fan, there's no way Belichick settles for 3 on the road with Manning at the helm & that defense dominating everything.  Hindsight is hindsight.  Have to go for broke in the red zone because they might not've had those subsequent chances.

What I was waiting for, naturally, was a timely turnover in the 2nd half which never came.  Momentum might not be real but it's a thing.

[Rockstar Matt]

1 hour ago, Kramerica Industries said:

It's also just a ridiculous assumption to say if New England kicks a FG down 20-12 that they would have gone on to win the game. Game decision A affects Game decision B which effects Game decision C, so on, and so forth. The game may well have turned out much different at 20-15 with 5:00 to play. Come on; I thought we all were well aware of the fallacy of the pre-determined outcome by now.

 

It's an easy assumption because regardless if New England does kick a field goal before their final drive or not, they still would have been desperate for a TD as they were on that final drive. But you're right, I should have said that there is a decent chance they would have won the game had they kicked a FG on one of those first two 4th quarter drive. 

 

Having said that, I still think they made the right call to go for it on fourth down on both of those drives. Hindsight is 20/20, but there was no guarantee they would have gotten the ball back. 

[HedleyLamarr]

That's the thing...at that moment where many were saying the Patriots should have kicked the FG, with six minutes left in the game...that was New England's first offensive possession of the 4th quarter.  And the 4th down play was a good call...it just happened to come up against a blown coverage gone right.  A four minute drive just to get to the point of that initial 4th down decision...there was no guarantee the Patriots were getting the ball back.  Can't assume you're getting another possession, much less two.  And especially if your offense was struggling most of the day....

[Rockstar Matt]

1 hour ago, See Red said:

 

 

Their secondary is really no more injured than it has been.  Ward's ankle has been an issue since prior to the Bengals game and Ward has two weeks to nurse a pretty minor knee issue.

 

Ah, good to know. Denver needs to play a near perfect game defensively to compensate for their offense to win the game and I thought that by having their secondary not at their absolute best could end up being a determent to their success. But, if they've been playing like this for a while with no serious mishaps, then hopefully they'll play at a high level. The Super Bowl is more fun when it's a good game.

 

Quote

It sounds foolish because New England is good.  Again, in saying they only beat New England by two, you're acting as if New England isn't any good.  The last part is pure speculation. They haven't been, though.  You're going by PPG -- which is fine, but isn't all-telling.  It ignores a lot, like how much Carolina's league lead in turnovers might have affected offensive production through field position.  Beyond that, you're comparing Carolina to, in part, a New England team that wasn't healthy.  The New England offense was completely different with Julian Edelman.  33 PPG with, 23 PPG without.  With a healthy Edelman, there's no reason to think they don't finish as the top offense in football.  So sure, if you pretend that Denver was playing against week 14 New England, then sure, they weren't as good.  They weren't, though.  Edelman played.  New England with him vs New England without him isn't even close.

New England is a good team, when healthy. They'll be championship contenders next year unless if we get lucky and Belicheck and/or Brady retires (fingers crossed). But due to their injuries, the offense wasn't as potent as they were earlier in the season. They just haven't been as good ever since Edelman went down with an injury. Carolina's offense, sans their #1 which they've played without the whole season, is healthy. Which brings me back to my original point of that Carolina's offense is better than the Patriots, right now, and thusly a more difficult (if you don't like that phrasing, then use different) challenge. This is primarily because of Cam Newton's dynamic ability at QB, yes, and because of New England's injuries, but my point remains the same. Denver's defense will not be able to completely shut down Carolina's offense. They will do better than Arizona did though.

 

Quote

 

I'm not capable of seeing objectively? 

I only brought that quote up because it's just as arrogant of me now to suggest you are incapable of seeing things objectively as it was for you to do the same.

 

But I don't even understand why we're still debating considering you said, "Where Carolina is going to win is with their front seven against the Broncos offensive line.  Peyton looks relatively fine but he's no longer capable of playing at a high enough level to mask a bad offensive line and I can't see the running game getting anything going.  I think Denver keeps it close, but Carolina makes it look a little more lopsided late. I think Carolina wins the game -- maybe by two scores."

 

And I've said: "if Denver loses, the Broncos offense will be the main reason why. I actually think the Broncos defense will keep the Panthers in check for most of the game. The Broncos defense will keep the game close until the Panthers force a game changing turnover which will lead to Carolina winning by double figures" 

 

Which to me indicates that, regardless of how we got there, we both pretty much think the same thing is going to happen, no..?

[2001mark]

18 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

New England is a good team, when healthy. They'll be championship contenders next year unless if we get lucky and Belicheck and/or Brady retires (fingers crossed). But due to their injuries, the offense wasn't as potent as they were earlier in the season. They just haven't been as good ever since Edelman went down with an injury. Carolina's offense, sans their #1 which they've played without the whole season, is healthy. Which brings me back to my original point of that Carolina's offense is better than the Patriots, right now, and thusly a more difficult (if you don't like that phrasing, then use different) challenge. This is primarily because of Cam Newton's dynamic ability at QB, yes, and because of New England's injuries, but my point remains the same. Denver's defense will not be able to completely shut down Carolina's offense. They will do better than Arizona did though.

 

The Patriots should see a rebound of sorts next season, with all due respect I'm sure with their offensive weapons, defensive versatility (including a sound secondary), reloading the O-line shouldn't be that big a mountain to climb.  
Looking at their '16 opponents, I can only safely see 10 wins or so on paper (NFC West, AFC North, Broncos, Texans), though 12-13 wins wouldn't surprise me either, naturally.

[See Red]

19 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

Which to me indicates that, regardless of how we got there, we both pretty much think the same thing is going to happen, no..?

 

*shrug*

 

I'm just arguing against the idea that the Broncos have no chance to win this game or that it'll just be a blowout, which has been mentioned.  I think Carolina will win -- I think they'll get up early, lead by a score or two the entire game and the Broncos will occasionally get to within a score, or maybe get the ball in a spot to take the lead but you just never get the feeling they're going to win.  Carolina tacks on a late score and the game looks more lopsided than it was.  However, it's entirely possible Denver wins the game -- if the Miller and Ware (and I expect Ware to be a force knowing it's his first and likely only Super Bowl) have a good game, the Broncos force a turnover or two, and the offense doesn't turn the ball the over, that's a recipe for a Broncos win, in my opinion.  It's also entirely possible Denver gets down early and doesn't have the fire power to make a game of it -- I just don't think that's what should be expected from the game.

[Rockstar Matt]

23 hours ago, See Red said:

 

*shrug*

 

I'm just arguing against the idea that the Broncos have no chance to win this game or that it'll just be a blowout, which has been mentioned.  I think Carolina will win -- I think they'll get up early, lead by a score or two the entire game and the Broncos will occasionally get to within a score, or maybe get the ball in a spot to take the lead but you just never get the feeling they're going to win.  Carolina tacks on a late score and the game looks more lopsided than it was.  However, it's entirely possible Denver wins the game -- if the Miller and Ware (and I expect Ware to be a force knowing it's his first and likely only Super Bowl) have a good game, the Broncos force a turnover or two, and the offense doesn't turn the ball the over, that's a recipe for a Broncos win, in my opinion.  It's also entirely possible Denver gets down early and doesn't have the fire power to make a game of it -- I just don't think that's what should be expected from the game.

 

Yeah, I get that. You're probably right though. Blowouts in Super Bowls have been rare this century and the Broncos are in the Super Bowl for a reason. They're a really good team and won't go down without a fight.