2012 NFL Season

[gunnar hendershow]

Surely New England won't blow a lead like Atlanta did earlier, right?

[Adam]

I'm gonna need a whole lot more beer if Houston are going to keep failing so miserably on 3rd Down in comparison to the Pats. Need a TD soon, I do not want to see New England ruin my dreams and beat Ray Lewis' career into submission whilst simultaneously making it to another SuperBowl next week.

Gronk's not looking too healthy on that sideline.

[gunnar hendershow]

Surely New England won't blow a lead like Atlanta did earlier, right?

Well they didn't go up as much as I thought they were doing to, but they let Houston right back into this.

Also, disappointing bookend to Billy Cundiff's shank last year is that Shayne Graham was briefly the Ravens kicker and as we saw he just nailed a 55-yarder at Gillette. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that does.

[The Buscher]

And that's game, set, match. Patriots to end Ray Lewis' career next week.

[Adam]

Ima have to dust down my purple regalia and get right behind Baltimore to knock off Brady next week now. Texans aren't coming back in this. Shaub's done alright but the running game has been a pretty poor showing.

[thatshortguy]

[Mofoticon]

ProFootballTalk Per source, Rob Gronkowski is done for rest of the postseason. Re-injured forearm and needs another surgery.

[gunnar hendershow]

The Ravens revenge tour heads to Foxboro.

[Cactus Drags]

We are all Baltimore Ravens.

[DMN in the House]

Indeed we are. I'll be happy to see a Baltimore/San Francisco super bowl.

[GhostMachine]

Someone at another message board is a fucking goddamned genius.

Because he suggested the perfect choice for new Jets GM:

Matt Motherfucking Millen!

But he and I both agree that their owner probably isn't quite nuts enough to go that route.

[Your Mom]

Go Patriots!!!

[Red Devil-Taker316]

I gotta admit I like the lack of parity in the AFC right now. Having a AFC Title game rematch makes it feel like a bigger deal than normal.

[OGpistolpete]

Me and my boss talked about this concerning the Denver/Baltimore game. I understand a poor play in the secondary, a misread on coverage, and bad communication between players resulting in a big play ... but why the hell don't team's literally just put one guy at the end of the end zone. Look at your safety and say, "seriously, just stay at the tip of the end zone and wait to see what develops. Since Baltimore is down by more than a touchdown, just stay there and don't let whoever gets the ball in the end zone." Who cares if you have one safety actually covering the play, and another man back to prevent a touchdown. If that player is a great tackler and anticipator, there is no way that receiver is getting into the end zone, even if he does catch the ball.Baltimore had no timeouts, three-fourths of a field to cover, and like, 20 fuckin seconds. There's absolutely no way that if they were to get that pass off with a man just sitting at the edge of the end zone, ready to wrap up the receiver, that the guy is getting in and sending things into overtime. There is absolutely no reason (in this scenario) that you need your two safeties playing the receivers like the game is still yet to be decided, and they should play man coverage with a chance of getting beat on foot. There's just no way.

[naiwf]

In Brady we trust. He has to be ecstatic that Eli's not there to prevent him from winning another ring.

[gunnar hendershow]

Me and my boss talked about this concerning the Denver/Baltimore game. I understand a poor play in the secondary, a misread on coverage, and bad communication between players resulting in a big play ... but why the hell don't team's literally just put one guy at the end of the end zone. Look at your safety and say, "seriously, just stay at the tip of the end zone and wait to see what develops. Since Baltimore is down by more than a touchdown, just stay there and don't let whoever gets the ball in the end zone." Who cares if you have one safety actually covering the play, and another man back to prevent a touchdown. If that player is a great tackler and anticipator, there is no way that receiver is getting into the end zone, even if he does catch the ball.Baltimore had no timeouts, three-fourths of a field to cover, and like, 20 fuckin seconds. There's absolutely no way that if they were to get that pass off with a man just sitting at the edge of the end zone, ready to wrap up the receiver, that the guy is getting in and sending things into overtime. There is absolutely no reason (in this scenario) that you need your two safeties playing the receivers like the game is still yet to be decided, and they should play man coverage with a chance of getting beat on foot. There's just no way.

I don't know how well that would work. You're leaving at least one WR in guaranteed single-coverage. In order to have the player for enough back it will be obvious and a smart QB will likely audible to set it up so that someone is focusing on disrupting that block. It might work on occasion but too many times you're running the risk of having a safety in the middle of the endzone, two deep routes each in single coverage, and by the time one of them catches the ball at the 30 or 25 they're at such a full spring the safety can't possibly get over there to stop them in time. I guess we'd have to see this idea in action for a real perspective but I think it hasn't been really attempted for these reasons.

[Universal]

I gotta admit I like the lack of parity in the AFC right now. Having a AFC Title game rematch makes it feel like a bigger deal than normal.

I'm riding with Brady. I'll settle for Kaepernick or even Schaub, but can't find myself wanting to see Flacco or Ryan succeed at the highest level. Baltimore vs Atlanta would be the least appealing SB to me since Tampa Bay vs Oakland. - EDIT - said naiwf, this quote system for this new board is weird.

Yeah, the last thing most people want is a Superbowl of two teams with no connection, no history and no underdog story. The Ray Lewis/Tony Gonzalez retirement party is the most interesting spin you can give to Ravens/Falcons. Other than that, it's two franchise QBs who never made it battling for the championship. Yeah, you can make a story out of that, but it's nothing to make me get emotionally invested unless I was a fan of one of those teams. Granted, it could be worse, but it's tough to root for one team over another if they both have the exact same story going in.

49ers/Ravens would be the harbowl. That's got some meat in it. But I think the 49ers would roast the Ravens. I think the 49ers have everything the Ravens have and more. The old aging defense of the ravens will get slaughtered, in my opinion. Maybe they will surprise me and pull it out, but I don't see it.

Patriots/Falcons would be Tom Brady going after his 4th Superbowl after losing the last two (and possibly being considered the GOAT if he won) with completely different personnel than the last ring he won (besides Wilfork). Matt Ryan and The Falcons going from winning no playoff games to the Superbowl in the house of their division rival. Tony G retiring. That is compelling, much more than the Ravens/Falcons because it's not the same story for both teams. It's much easier to pick a side when you have two different stories going into the game.

Patriots/49ers would be Tom Brady facing his childhood home team in the stadium where he won his first Superbowl. 49ers being super similar to the 2001 Patriots with a QB controversy and amazing defense going up against arguably the best offense in the league. This is probably the most meaty match-up of the 4.

I honestly hope the Patriots beat The Ravens because it would produce the best and most interesting match-ups. The other game can go either way but the 49ers probably have the best story with the QB controversy and the first year starting QB.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Universal

[DMN in the House]

Me and my boss talked about this concerning the Denver/Baltimore game. I understand a poor play in the secondary, a misread on coverage, and bad communication between players resulting in a big play ... but why the hell don't team's literally just put one guy at the end of the end zone. Look at your safety and say, "seriously, just stay at the tip of the end zone and wait to see what develops. Since Baltimore is down by more than a touchdown, just stay there and don't let whoever gets the ball in the end zone." Who cares if you have one safety actually covering the play, and another man back to prevent a touchdown. If that player is a great tackler and anticipator, there is no way that receiver is getting into the end zone, even if he does catch the ball.Baltimore had no timeouts, three-fourths of a field to cover, and like, 20 fuckin seconds. There's absolutely no way that if they were to get that pass off with a man just sitting at the edge of the end zone, ready to wrap up the receiver, that the guy is getting in and sending things into overtime. There is absolutely no reason (in this scenario) that you need your two safeties playing the receivers like the game is still her to be decided, and they should play man coverage with a chance of getting beat on foot. There's just no way.

I don't know how well that would work. You're leaving at least one WR in guaranteed single-coverage. In order to have the player for enough back it will be obvious and a smart QB will likely audible to set it up so that someone is focusing on disrupting that block. It might work on occasion but too many times you're running the risk of having a safety in the middle of the endzone, two deep routes each in single coverage, and by the time one of them catches the ball at the 30 or 25 they're at such a full spring the safety can't possibly get over there to stop them in time. I guess we'd have to see this idea in action for a real perspective but I think it hasn't been really attempted for these reasons.

Nevins the fact that if you put an NFL receiver in open space against a NFL safety, the receiver wins most of the time.

[OGpistolpete]

Me and my boss talked about this concerning the Denver/Baltimore game. I understand a poor play in the secondary, a misread on coverage, and bad communication between players resulting in a big play ... but why the hell don't team's literally just put one guy at the end of the end zone. Look at your safety and say, "seriously, just stay at the tip of the end zone and wait to see what develops. Since Baltimore is down by more than a touchdown, just stay there and don't let whoever gets the ball in the end zone." Who cares if you have one safety actually covering the play, and another man back to prevent a touchdown. If that player is a great tackler and anticipator, there is no way that receiver is getting into the end zone, even if he does catch the ball.Baltimore had no timeouts, three-fourths of a field to cover, and like, 20 fuckin seconds. There's absolutely no way that if they were to get that pass off with a man just sitting at the edge of the end zone, ready to wrap up the receiver, that the guy is getting in and sending things into overtime. There is absolutely no reason (in this scenario) that you need your two safeties playing the receivers like the game is still her to be decided, and they should play man coverage with a chance of getting beat on foot. There's just no way.

I don't know how well that would work. You're leaving at least one WR in guaranteed single-coverage. In order to have the player for enough back it will be obvious and a smart QB will likely audible to set it up so that someone is focusing on disrupting that block. It might work on occasion but too many times you're running the risk of having a safety in the middle of the endzone, two deep routes each in single coverage, and by the time one of them catches the ball at the 30 or 25 they're at such a full spring the safety can't possibly get over there to stop them in time. I guess we'd have to see this idea in action for a real perspective but I think it hasn't been really attempted for these reasons.

Nevins the fact that if you put an NFL receiver in open space against a NFL safety, the receiver wins most of the time.

I mean looking at the play again, there was actually like 40 seconds on the clock so it's not really feasible, but still...

[Powerhart]

Most teams usually do that, SKA. Don't know why the Broncos didn't go that route. Teams usually just pressure the QB with 3 man, and drop everbody else back in coverage, including keeping three guys deep in the redzone for safety.