2013 NFL Football

[boogielicious]

It is always a bad idea to tank the last game of the season in my opinion.  Bad things seem to happen like injuries and first round losses following.  Philly should play to win and keep the momentum going.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The Chefs could conceivably finish with the 2nd best record in the NFL, yet they won't get a home game.  I think that their limited versatility has been exposed.  An offense with 2 weapons (Bowe and Charles), and a defense which has not stood up well against better offenses would seem to point to them not going far in the playoffs.

Chefs Rick?  Are we talking Guy Fieri and Bobby Flay?  Both Indy and KC seem to change week to week.  One week they are very dangerous and play at the very high level.  The next, they struggle.  I think both will be dangerous in the playoffs though.

What can I say, I'm a Bronco fan, orange blood and all.

[phan52]

I think phan is correct, Dallas is 5-0 in the division so they get the tiebreaker.  I'm pretty sure Philly needs to win next week to win the division since Dallas has the better divisional record.  The win this week didn't help them unless there's some crazy wild card scenario where SF loses the next two games and NO  loses next week that would allow Philly to back in.

There is no scenario in play where either Philly or Dallas could have been a wild card, even before the games yesterday. The loser of next week's game will have a minimum of 7 losses so it is either win the division or go home.

[phan52]

ROMO OUT NEXT WEEK!!

Las Vegas line moved from Eagles -2.5 to Eagles -7 a half hour after it was announced.

[Golfingdad]

ROMO OUT NEXT WEEK!! Las Vegas line moved from Eagles -2.5 to Eagles -7 a half hour after it was announced.

Are you not at all scared of Kyle orton?? ;)

[Slice of Life]

As of 1 minute ago:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/garrett-romo-ruled-philly-game-21317568

Not quite ruled out yet...so we'll see. Lot of conflicting reports.

[boogielicious]

There are a bunch of win and in games this weekend. It should be exciting for the fans.

[Golfingdad]

There are a bunch of win and in games this weekend. It should be exciting for the fans.

Yes, and lets all hope that by the time the morning games are done that the Chargers game has become a "win and in" game ... meaning Cincinnati steps up and takes care of the Ravens (and possible wins themselves an extra home game) and the Jets (yes, the freaking Jets) do what your stupid Patriots failed to do last week ... which is beat the danged Ryan Tannehills!!!

P.S.  Nobody cares about the Steelers.  They stink!!!

EDIT:  It's crazy to think that the 49ers are still in the running for the #1 seed in the NFC AND the #6 seed.  That's crazy!!  If you want to play around with the different scenarios, have fun: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/machine

[iacas]

P.S.  Nobody cares about the Steelers.  They stink!!!

I was hoping they'd go 2-14 or something and clean house. This near miss will have them convinced they don't need to make too many changes. :(

[Golfingdad]

Just read (second hand, through Gregg Easterbrook on ESPN) this good idea from Peter King to further improve and streamline the NFL replay process:

Quote:

Peter King of MMQB has reported that replay reviews may be moved to a central location, beamed electronically to a league office. This should speed up tedious and lengthy reviews. While we're at it, let's make replay review double blind.

Here's what would happen. Review officials would be sitting in an office in New York City, which for NFL purposes is located in New Jersey. A call is challenged at a game. A monitor would light up and show the disputed play -- without telling the replay official what was called on the field . The replay official would have two choices -- he would message that the play was indisputably an X, or that there is doubt. If the play was indisputably X, that would be the challenge result. If there was doubt, whatever was called on the field would stand. But the replay official would not know what was called on the field.

[+] Enlarge

AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack Make it a remote view, and make it double-blind.

That the referee staring at the review monitor already knows the call on the field introduces observer bias. He is not asking himself "What happened on this play?" but rather "Can our original call be justified?" If the replay reviewer at a remote location did not know what was called on the field -- or what the game situation was, or whether the crowd cheered or booed -- he would only ask himself, "What happened on this play?" and he'd only have to determine if he was sure what happened. If he couldn't be sure, the call on the field should stand. Medical research has shown that the less the tester knows about a drug or therapy, the more valid the result. The same would be true about replay reviews.

[boogielicious]

Yes, and lets all hope that by the time the morning games are done that the Chargers game has become a "win and in" game ... meaning Cincinnati steps up and takes care of the Ravens (and possible wins themselves an extra home game) and the Jets (yes, the freaking Jets) do what your stupid Patriots failed to do last week ... which is beat the danged Ryan Tannehills!!!

P.S.  Nobody cares about the Steelers.  They stink!!!

EDIT:  It's crazy to think that the 49ers are still in the running for the #1 seed in the NFC AND the #6 seed.  That's crazy!!  If you want to play around with the different scenarios, have fun: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/machine

Never underestimate division rivalries.  San Diego beat the Broncos at home!  No matter what the records are, the games can always be competitive and have surprise endings.

[jamo]

I was hoping they'd go 2-14 or something and clean house. This near miss will have them convinced they don't need to make too many changes. :(

Are you hoping they keep or get rid of Roethlisberger? As bad as the Steelers have been for most of the year, I still fear Ben as much as just about any QB. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/69880/2013-nfl-football/600_30#post_932739"]Just read (second hand, through Gregg Easterbrook on ESPN) this good idea from Peter King to further improve and streamline the NFL replay process: [/quote] I'm not so sure if moving it off-site and making them blind to the original call would be improvements, but I've been saying forever that it would be faster and better if the on-field refs didn't have to do it themselves.

[iacas]

Are you hoping they keep or get rid of Roethlisberger? As bad as the Steelers have been for most of the year, I still fear Ben as much as just about any QB.

Ben is not the problem. His contract isn't great, but he's not the problem. I don't think he wants to go anywhere else either.

[Golfingdad]

Are you hoping they keep or get rid of Roethlisberger? As bad as the Steelers have been for most of the year, I still fear Ben as much as just about any QB.

I'm not so sure if moving it off-site and making them blind to the original call would be improvements, but I've been saying forever that it would be faster and better if the on-field refs didn't have to do it themselves.

Right.  Whether it's in New York or upstairs in the stadium is neither here nor there ... the thing that has always bothered me was the fact that the guys who made the original calls were the ones reviewing themselves.  Even the best of them is going to have a little bias inside from time to time so keeping it out of their hands is a good idea.  I assume that centralizing it instead of having an extra ref at every game is just a financial thing.

And his comparison to medical trials is hard to argue with, in defense of the double blind idea.  But is it ultimately necessary?  Perhaps not.

The important thing about those changes is that they may or may not improve things, but it would be really, really, hard to make the argument AGAINST them.  They certainly couldn't hurt. ;)

[boogielicious]

Right.  Whether it's in New York or upstairs in the stadium is neither here nor there ... the thing that has always bothered me was the fact that the guys who made the original calls were the ones reviewing themselves.  Even the best of them is going to have a little bias inside from time to time so keeping it out of their hands is a good idea.  I assume that centralizing it instead of having an extra ref at every game is just a financial thing.

And his comparison to medical trials is hard to argue with, in defense of the double blind idea.  But is it ultimately necessary?  Perhaps not.

The important thing about those changes is that they may or may not improve things, but it would be really, really, hard to make the argument AGAINST them.  They certainly couldn't hurt. ;)

It won't help the image that the refs have been looking very confused, disorganized and inconsistent this year either.  Each game I've watched (not just Pats games) have had poor calls and inconsistencies.  We've all seen it.  As an example: In the last game I watched, Pats at Ravens, twice the refs had made a call, moved the ball, announced the call to the crowd, then changed the call, moved the ball someplace else and announced that they reversed the call or announced there was no foul.  They looked like they had no clue as to what was going on.  The game lasted 3:35 minutes.

Then Blandino has to come on TV on Mondays and come up with some excuses as to why calls were or should have been made.  The latest, of course, being that punters are defenseless after the Pitt/Bengals game.  Huh?!  Baffling.

[iacas]

It won't help the image that the refs have been looking very confused, disorganized and inconsistent this year either.  Each game I've watched (not just Pats games) have had poor calls and inconsistencies.  We've all seen it.  As an example: In the last game I watched, Pats at Ravens, twice the refs had made a call, moved the ball, announced the call to the crowd, then changed the call, moved the ball someplace else and announced that they reversed the call or announced there was no foul.  They looked like they had no clue as to what was going on.  The game lasted 3:35 minutes.

You should have seen the cluster**** that was the blocked field goal in the Green Bay/Pittsburgh game.

[boogielicious]

You should have seen the cluster**** that was the blocked field goal in the Green Bay/Pittsburgh game.

I saw the replay.  Another perfect example.  The average fan would have seen the Pitt player as in control of the ball.  The expert refs couldn't?

[JetFan1983]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

P.S.  Nobody cares about the Steelers.  They stink!!!

I was hoping they'd go 2-14 or something and clean house. This near miss will have them convinced they don't need to make too many changes. :(

I say literally the EXACT same thing nearly every Jets season. Seriously. Lone tear for me.