NFL playoffs

[JQK]

from "The Penalty Box" forum:

Last 10 NFC Super Bowl Representatives:

● St. Louis Rams ● XXXVI

● Tampa Bay Buccaneers ● XXXVII

● Carolina Panthers ● XXXVIII

● Philadelphia Eagles ● XXXIX

● Seattle Seahawks ● XL

● Chicago Bears ● XLI

● New York Giants ● XLII

● Arizona Cardinals ● XLIII

● New Orleans Saints ● XLIV

● Green Bay Packers ● XLV

This is the first time in the Super Bowl era that either league/conference sent ten different teams to the Super Bowl in a ten year stretch.

In this same time period, the AFC has only sent four teams:

● New England Patriots ● XXXVI ● XXXVIII ● XXXIX ● XLII

● Pittsburgh Steelers ● XL ● XLIII ● XLV

● Indianapolis Colts ● XLI ● XLIV

● Oakland Raiders ● XXXVII

[JQK]

I have a friend who's not a big NFL fan, only watches the Super Bowl every year because it's a big social event and he likes the party. But before each Super Bowl, he picks who he wants to win by looking at each team's cheerleaders and rooting for the team with the hottest ones (in his opinion)...

So my question is - is this the first Super Bowl where neither team has a cheerleading squad?

[Sodboy13]

Mea culpa. I admit I didn't watch the whole game, so I probably missed that.

However, I still take pleasure in reveling in the Jets' failure, even if it came at the expense of seeing Ben Rapistberger win.

Sooooo... you're an assh_le?

It's spelled "Asperger's," John.

[Lights Out]

Seriously, where are the Jets fans? I thought the bravado was too thick to be silenced by one little loss. Ah, I know, they are all consoling the weepy eyed,fat asshat douchenozzle of a coach they have.

Yes. Yes. Oh dear God one thousand times yes.

This proves that for all of the Rex Ryan talks, he just can't get it done when it really counts. He needs to shut the up and act like a real :censored:ing coach.

Two straight AFC Championship Games is getting it done a lot more than Norv's getting it done. I would be ecstatic if Rex decided tomorrow that he wanted to coach the Chargers and AJ hired him.

[TrueYankee26]

packers are gonna win

[NJTank]

I have a friend who's not a big NFL fan, only watches the Super Bowl every year because it's a big social event and he likes the party. But before each Super Bowl, he picks who he wants to win by looking at each team's cheerleaders and rooting for the team with the hottest ones (in his opinion)...

So my question is - is this the first Super Bowl where neither team has a cheerleading squad?

The Packers techically don't have a cheerleading squad, they use cheerleaders from UWGB.

BTW I am sure in the early days teams did not have cheerleaders. The Colts were the first team to use cheerleaders and the Cowboys made it popular.

[BlueSky]

Completely unrelated to Jets/Steelers, but I just remembered something. Remember when Jay Cutler called out Philip Rivers for "the way he carries himself on the field"?

Well, let's compare:

2007 AFC Championship Game - Hobbled by a torn ligament in his knee, Philip Rivers still plays against the 18-0 Patriots. Despite his bad injury and the lack of LT, he still manages to throw for 211 yards against an 17-0 Patriots team that quite frankly, should have absolutely demolished the Chargers. The game was remarkably close (21-12) considering Rivers' injury and how unstoppable the Patriots were that year (until the Super Bowl).

2011 NFC Championship Game - A completely healthy Jay Cutler takes the field against the 10-6 wildcard Packers. He lays an egg during the first half, putting up a whopping 80 yards passing and a miserable 31.8 QB rating, and then has a mysterious "knee injury" that requires him to be pulled from the game. Obviously it wasn't too serious as he was shown standing up on the sidelines later in the game. Third-string quarterback Caleb Hanie embarrasses him by almost pulling out the victory for the Bears.

Who carries themselves better on the field? I'd say Rivers by a country mile.

You can't say anything about Cutler not being tough, because he might actually have had something serious and didn't want to risk it.

He's either soft or completely ignorant of appearances, because when you're too hurt to go back into the biggest game of your life, you don't stand on the sidelines without so much as an ice pack on your knee with what appeared to be iPod earbuds in. That's for preseason games, not the NFC Championship.

I heard Cutler's win vs. Seattle was his first post-season victory since high school, so here's my guess - he doesn't know how to win big games at a high level. But he went to Vanderbilt, you argue; well, Drew Brees went to Purdue when they were awful-to-mediocre and took them to the Rose Bowl, and we've seen what he's done in the NFL playoffs. He has "it" - he's a winner at whatever level. Cutler, it would appear, not so much.

Seriously, where are the Jets fans? I thought the bravado was too thick to be silenced by one little loss. Ah, I know, they are all consoling the weepy eyed,fat asshat douchenozzle of a coach they have.

Yes. Yes. Oh dear God one thousand times yes.

This proves that for all of the Rex Ryan talks, he just can't get it done when it really counts. He needs to shut the up and act like a real :censored:ing coach.

I'm completely ambivalent when it comes to Rex, but the guy has a 4-2 postseason record after two years as a head coach... obviously he's doing more than a couple of things right.

And all on the road. I also dislike the Jetsbury Doughboy but that record is impressive.

If we can get away from the hatefest for five seconds and get back to the games...

Something's been bugging me all year. Why, why, why don't more teams that are down by 1 possession (especially in the 4-8 pt range) attempt the onside inside of 4 minutes left after a score? Forget trusting your defense, timeouts, and field position-if the opponent gets the ball in that situation and gets 1 first down (whether they started on your 45 or inside their 20), your team is ed. And even if you pull the 3 and out after the kick, at best all of your timeouts and 30 seconds will be gone, at worst it will be no timeouts and a minute or 2 gone.

Now, I don't have the stats in front of me, but I have to figure the chances of pulling off the onside are better than the chances of holding your opponent to a 3 and Out after a big kick. It seems to me from a game theory perspective you're better off trying to pull off the onside rather than relying on your defense.

Because if you don't recover, the opponent is basically in scoring territory, like what happened to the Patriots against the Jets, and if they so much as kick a FG, now it's a two-possession game. The percentages for recovering onsides kicks that aren't a surprise - remember, the one the Saints recovered in the SB was a surprise and they damn near lost it too - are extremely low. In baseball, how many managers would intentionally walk a guy if he got to go to second base?

In fact, the irony for the Pats was when the announcers were discussing it, they said if they kicked deep and held they'd have the ball around their own 40 with about 1:30 left. In fact, that's exactly the field position and time they ended up with, just down 14 instead of 7.

[slapshot]

I'm obligated to despise every team in the AFC East

The Buffalo Bills are anything but despiseable.

You despise all the division rivals of your favorite team. That's just how it goes.

[rams80]

If we can get away from the hatefest for five seconds and get back to the games...

Something's been bugging me all year. Why, why, why don't more teams that are down by 1 possession (especially in the 4-8 pt range) attempt the onside inside of 4 minutes left after a score? Forget trusting your defense, timeouts, and field position-if the opponent gets the ball in that situation and gets 1 first down (whether they started on your 45 or inside their 20), your team is ed. And even if you pull the 3 and out after the kick, at best all of your timeouts and 30 seconds will be gone, at worst it will be no timeouts and a minute or 2 gone.

Now, I don't have the stats in front of me, but I have to figure the chances of pulling off the onside are better than the chances of holding your opponent to a 3 and Out after a big kick. It seems to me from a game theory perspective you're better off trying to pull off the onside rather than relying on your defense.

Because if you don't recover, the opponent is basically in scoring territory, like what happened to the Patriots against the Jets, and if they so much as kick a FG, now it's a two-possession game. The percentages for recovering onsides kicks that aren't a surprise - remember, the one the Saints recovered in the SB was a surprise and they damn near lost it too - are extremely low. In baseball, how many managers would intentionally walk a guy if he got to go to second base?

In fact, the irony for the Pats was when the announcers were discussing it, they said if they kicked deep and held they'd have the ball around their own 40 with about 1:30 left. In fact, that's exactly the field position and time they ended up with, just down 14 instead of 7.

If they get the ball around your 40 or 45, (and lets be honest, onside attempts typically don't net returns) they still need a first down to get within manageable field goal range. I posited right at the beginning that if they get a first down, your team is toast regardless of where that drive started.

-----------------------------------

On the Cutler thing, personally I think the Bears were just looking for an excuse to get Cutler off the field because Lordy he was not playing well yesterday.

[BlueSky]

If we can get away from the hatefest for five seconds and get back to the games...

Something's been bugging me all year. Why, why, why don't more teams that are down by 1 possession (especially in the 4-8 pt range) attempt the onside inside of 4 minutes left after a score? Forget trusting your defense, timeouts, and field position-if the opponent gets the ball in that situation and gets 1 first down (whether they started on your 45 or inside their 20), your team is ed. And even if you pull the 3 and out after the kick, at best all of your timeouts and 30 seconds will be gone, at worst it will be no timeouts and a minute or 2 gone.

Now, I don't have the stats in front of me, but I have to figure the chances of pulling off the onside are better than the chances of holding your opponent to a 3 and Out after a big kick. It seems to me from a game theory perspective you're better off trying to pull off the onside rather than relying on your defense.

Because if you don't recover, the opponent is basically in scoring territory, like what happened to the Patriots against the Jets, and if they so much as kick a FG, now it's a two-possession game. The percentages for recovering onsides kicks that aren't a surprise - remember, the one the Saints recovered in the SB was a surprise and they damn near lost it too - are extremely low. In baseball, how many managers would intentionally walk a guy if he got to go to second base?

In fact, the irony for the Pats was when the announcers were discussing it, they said if they kicked deep and held they'd have the ball around their own 40 with about 1:30 left. In fact, that's exactly the field position and time they ended up with, just down 14 instead of 7.

If they get the ball around your 40 or 45, (and lets be honest, onside attempts typically don't net returns) they still need a first down to get within manageable field goal range. I posited right at the beginning that if they get a first down, your team is toast regardless of where that drive started.

-----------------------------------

On the Cutler thing, personally I think the Bears were just looking for an excuse to get Cutler off the field because Lordy he was not playing well yesterday.

If that's true regardless of the opponent's field position, you obviously would want to take your chances stopping them at the place that nets you the best score disadvantage and field position afterwards. Also, even if it's the kicking team's 45, the "worst best case" - holding the opponent to 9 yards on 3 downs - gives them 4th and 1 at your 36, within FG range for many kickers. They might also choose to roll the dice and go for it, something they'd never do at their own 30. Holding them to 4th and whatever in their own territory clearly gives you the best chance to score, which is the point, right?

About Cutler, if your theory is true, they need a new QB because he's done in Chicago.

[TFoA]

So word on the street is that Cutler suffered an MCL Tear. That explains why after he got hurt, he was one-hopping passes out there. He couldn't plant his feet & get anything behind a pass.

I'm not gonna criticize an NFL player for not playing through an injury like that (or any injury for that matter). I'm just a fan, & a fan with no medical expertise, either. So yeah, if Cutler couldn't go, I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't wanna hear "WELL HERP DERP, JOE MUSTANG PLAYED 8 WEEKS ON A BROKEN LEG ALL FOR SUPER BOWL GLORY, HERP DERP." Different strokes, different folks.

[rams80]

If we can get away from the hatefest for five seconds and get back to the games...

Something's been bugging me all year. Why, why, why don't more teams that are down by 1 possession (especially in the 4-8 pt range) attempt the onside inside of 4 minutes left after a score? Forget trusting your defense, timeouts, and field position-if the opponent gets the ball in that situation and gets 1 first down (whether they started on your 45 or inside their 20), your team is ed. And even if you pull the 3 and out after the kick, at best all of your timeouts and 30 seconds will be gone, at worst it will be no timeouts and a minute or 2 gone.

Now, I don't have the stats in front of me, but I have to figure the chances of pulling off the onside are better than the chances of holding your opponent to a 3 and Out after a big kick. It seems to me from a game theory perspective you're better off trying to pull off the onside rather than relying on your defense.

Because if you don't recover, the opponent is basically in scoring territory, like what happened to the Patriots against the Jets, and if they so much as kick a FG, now it's a two-possession game. The percentages for recovering onsides kicks that aren't a surprise - remember, the one the Saints recovered in the SB was a surprise and they damn near lost it too - are extremely low. In baseball, how many managers would intentionally walk a guy if he got to go to second base?

In fact, the irony for the Pats was when the announcers were discussing it, they said if they kicked deep and held they'd have the ball around their own 40 with about 1:30 left. In fact, that's exactly the field position and time they ended up with, just down 14 instead of 7.

If they get the ball around your 40 or 45, (and lets be honest, onside attempts typically don't net returns) they still need a first down to get within manageable field goal range. I posited right at the beginning that if they get a first down, your team is toast regardless of where that drive started.

-----------------------------------

On the Cutler thing, personally I think the Bears were just looking for an excuse to get Cutler off the field because Lordy he was not playing well yesterday.

If that's true regardless of the opponent's field position, you obviously would want to take your chances stopping them at the place that nets you the best score disadvantage and field position afterwards. Also, even if it's the kicking team's 45, the "worst best case" - holding the opponent to 9 yards on 3 downs - gives them 4th and 1 at your 36, within FG range for many kickers. They might also choose to roll the dice and go for it, something they'd never do at their own 30. Holding them to 4th and whatever in their own territory clearly gives you the best chance to score, which is the point, right?

About Cutler, if your theory is true, they need a new QB because he's done in Chicago.

It's a 53 yard attempt. That's extreme range for a lot of kickers and if they blow it, you get the ball on your 42. And yes, in theory getting the ball back after a punt from deep in your territory puts you in better scoring position (although in practice teams play prevents or prevent variants so often in those scenarios that you can make the yardage up in one play.) I just think its very hard for a tired defense to get a 3 and out in late game situations, and I also don't like that teams who need to score to win more or less give up the opportunity to control the ball and their game destiny.

[rams80]

So word on the street is that Cutler suffered an MCL Tear. That explains why after he got hurt, he was one-hopping passes out there. He couldn't plant his feet & get anything behind a pass.

I'm not gonna criticize an NFL player for not playing through an injury like that (or any injury for that matter). I'm just a fan, & a fan with no medical expertise, either. So yeah, if Cutler couldn't go, I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't wanna hear "WELL HERP DERP, JOE MUSTANG PLAYED 8 WEEKS ON A BROKEN LEG ALL FOR SUPER BOWL GLORY, HERP DERP." Different strokes, different folks.

To be fair, if I'm a Jaguars fan, I probably want to kill MJD for playing an entire season on one wheel when he could have sat down and let the team get a running back who was actually, you know, healthy.

[Jigga]

If nothing else think this entire episode just serves to confirm three things we've known for a long ass time:

1) Most football players are stupid.

2) Stupid people should not tweet.

3) Playing football hurts.

[Cujo]

It's official: Torn MCL for Jay Quitler.

[infrared41]

If nothing else think this entire episode just serves to confirm three things we've known for a long ass time:

1) Most football players are stupid.

2) Stupid people should not tweet.

3) Playing football hurts.

You forgot one; all coaches are geniuses who know way more about stuff than we do.

[Sodboy13]

It's official: Torn MCL for Jay Quitler.

Yeah, that Cutler really wussed out, letting his ligament shred like that, didn't he? You know who woulda never let that ligament give up on him? Bronko Nagurski! He woulda yelled at that ligament 'til it got its act together, or he woulda forced it back together with a couple of rusty nails from the splintered sideline bench, and then gone out there and beat the Packers, because DAT'S BEAR FOOTBALL.

Remind me to brain you with a cast-iron skillet should we ever meet in person.

[Sport]

It's official: Torn MCL for Jay Quitler.

Yeah, that Cutler really wussed out, letting his ligament shred like that, didn't he? You know who woulda never let that ligament give up on him? Bronko Nagurski! He woulda yelled at that ligament 'til it got its act together, or he woulda forced it back together with a couple of rusty nails from the splintered sideline bench, and then gone out there and beat the Packers, because DAT'S BEAR FOOTBALL.

Remind me to brain you with a cast-iron skillet should we ever meet in person.

I had something written up in response to "Quitler", but I read yours and mine was outdone by a mile. Well played sir, I nominate this for post of the day.

[Cujo]

My bad, Sod. I was throwing out that report. I definitely should've stressed sarcasm there. I don't think Cutler quit at all. In fact, I think all the analysts and players who bashed him own the guy a massive apology, 'cause dude got slammed by almost everyone.

[Billy B]

The only reason I'm mad that the Bears lost is because it lets the Packers into the Super Bowl. I mean, who expected the Bears to be hosting the NFC Championship Game? Before the season, I would have said that there's a better chance they would have a top 5 draft pick. And Cutler had an MCL tear! Anyone who calls him a now is an idiot. Like my cousin said, "People who never played a real down of football in their lives are always the first ones to criticize." The only thing the Bears did wrong is let Todd Collins throw the ball into the ground for a quarter. Caleb Hanie should have been the backup quarterback to begin with. Go Steelers!