2015 NFL Playoffs

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:49 pm

This really feels like a swansong/passing-of-the-torch game. Manning looks like crap. The Broncos are only in this game because the officials have kept them in it.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:53 pm

Sound like Pereira is missing his own distinction from earlier in his analysis of that fumble. The ground can't cause a fumble, it can cause an incompletion (absurd). The call in the Dallas game was whether it was an incompletion. Different situation based on what was said about the Bryant incompletion.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:01 pm

Mike Carey didn't get a single call right he explained all year. How he was ever a ref is beyond my comprehension

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:59 pm

Nothing more satisfying than another one and done for the least clutch "great quarterback" of all time

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:16 pm

Yeah I got Pereira and Carey mixed up.
Congrats to the Colts. I'm sure you guys are pumped up for next weekend. I can't speak for any other Pats fans, but I rather like Luck, whereas I always have disliked Manning. I'm hoping the Pats win next weekend, but if not, I'll probably root for the Colts in the SB.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:17 pm

Giants wrote:Nothing more satisfying than another one and done for the least clutch "great quarterback" of all time

Definitely need a plus one or thumbs up button or something...

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:59 pm

Still recovering from that Dallas game. Haven't felt like that since Bartman in 2003.... What a gut punch.

Rockies · Post by **Rockies** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:15 pm

Anyone buying the "Manning played with a torn quad" line?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:20 pm

Rockies wrote:Anyone buying the "Manning played with a torn quad" line?

"Torn"? Nope. Strained, sure.

Fox is gone. Manning will be next. The Broncos will need a decision from him within a few days, at most, so they can hire a new coach. What new coach will want a year of manning to slow down the required rebuilding effort? I bet Rex Ryan would, but he's signed with Buffalo formally now I believe.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:25 pm

Padres wrote:
Rockies wrote:Anyone buying the "Manning played with a torn quad" line?
"Torn"? Nope. Strained, sure.

Fox is gone. Manning will be next. The Broncos will need a decision from him within a few days, at most, so they can hire a new coach. What new coach will want a year of manning to slow down the required rebuilding effort? I bet Rex Ryan would, but he's signed with Buffalo formally now I believe.

The Broncos don't need to make up their mind until March, if they cut him the contract is no longer guaranteed, only if he is on the start of the 2015 roster.

I say they cut him though so they can take that 19 mil and bring in a few new guys along with sewing up the ones they already do have.

Rockies · Post by **Rockies** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:28 pm

If they get rid of Manning, who plays QB?

Rockies · Post by **Rockies** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:32 pm

And there goes Fox..

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2326 ... d-reaction

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:33 pm

Angels wrote:
Padres wrote:
Rockies wrote:Anyone buying the "Manning played with a torn quad" line?
"Torn"? Nope. Strained, sure.

Fox is gone. Manning will be next. The Broncos will need a decision from him within a few days, at most, so they can hire a new coach. What new coach will want a year of manning to slow down the required rebuilding effort? I bet Rex Ryan would, but he's signed with Buffalo formally now I believe.
The Broncos don't need to make up their mind until March, if they cut him the contract is no longer guaranteed, only if he is on the start of the 2015 roster.

I say they cut him though so they can take that 19 mil and bring in a few new guys along with sewing up the ones they already do have.

If the Broncos want a shot at hiring a new HC who isn't already on the staff, then yes, they WILL need a definite answer/decision on Manning in the next few days. If they decide to promote from within, then that's not the case. Nothing I've sen in watching the Broncos suggest that they have anyone in the pipeline who is really up for being an HC though, not that there's much available on the market. Although they could always inquire about McDaniels....
Personally, I think he retires and soon, not just because the Broncos might need him to. The quad was definitely overblown in the reports that came out and the whole team really needs a lot of work. There are too many potential free agents on the offensive side and the defense was never quite the hot ticket it was supposed to be. Manning has to know that and I don't think he wants to Brett Favre it his last year.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:34 pm

Rockies wrote:If they get rid of Manning, who plays QB?

Tebow is a Free Agent...

Rockies · Post by **Rockies** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:38 pm

Gimme a break. They gotta trade up if they get rid of Manning.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:40 pm

Cubs wrote:Still recovering from that Dallas game. Haven't felt like that since Bartman in 2003.... What a gut punch.

I know I may catch flack but I don't disagree with the call. The corner swatted the ball and he was juggling it when he came down. The ball hit the ground and bounced out. I thought they'd overturn it and they did

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:40 pm

Rockies wrote:If they get rid of Manning, who plays QB?

Osweiler. Not necessarily a good option, but he's next man up.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:43 pm

Cardinals wrote:
Cubs wrote:Still recovering from that Dallas game. Haven't felt like that since Bartman in 2003.... What a gut punch.
I know I may catch flack but I don't disagree with the call. The corner swatted the ball and he was juggling it when he came down. The ball hit the ground and bounced out. I thought they'd overturn it and they did

No one cares about Dallas, the big news is what happens with Manning and the Broncos.

Besides, terrible rule, right call, if you don't like it go complain to the League office and the 30 owners to change it.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:43 pm

Cardinals wrote:
Cubs wrote:Still recovering from that Dallas game. Haven't felt like that since Bartman in 2003.... What a gut punch.
I know I may catch flack but I don't disagree with the call. The corner swatted the ball and he was juggling it when he came down. The ball hit the ground and bounced out. I thought they'd overturn it and they did

I won't argue with you. The call looked pretty clear to me when I saw the replay. He goes to the ground and the ball clearly hits the ground and he looses control over it. No catch.

It's a bummer, because it was a great effort on Bryant's part and would have made the last 4 minutes pretty wild.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:47 pm

Mariners wrote:
Rockies wrote:If they get rid of Manning, who plays QB?

Osweiler. Not necessarily a good option, but he's next man up.

If they don't get rid of Manning who do they have if he looks like the last half of the season versus the first half.

Then you have 19 milion in sunk costs versus spending that elsewhere to improve as a whole. If you take 19 mil and get another 3-4 quality roleplayers, Brock has the cannon to throw anywhere on the field and then it is just a matter of can he manage a game and not have to necessarily be put on the hook to win one every week. Teams do luck into this method and succeed even if that was not option #1.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:55 pm

Angels wrote:
Mariners wrote:
Rockies wrote:If they get rid of Manning, who plays QB?

Osweiler. Not necessarily a good option, but he's next man up.
If they don't get rid of Manning who do they have if he looks like the last half of the season versus the first half.

Then you have 19 milion in sunk costs versus spending that elsewhere to improve as a whole. If you take 19 mil and get another 3-4 quality roleplayers, Brock has the cannon to throw anywhere on the field and then it is just a matter of can he manage a game and not have to necessarily be put on the hook to win one every week. Teams do luck into this method and succeed even if that was not option #1.

I was just responding to Nate's question. Osweiler is who they have and probably need to find out if he is the answer moving forward or not.

I completely agree. Best thing for the Broncos would be for Manning to announce his retirement so they could move on and utilize that cash elsewhere on the roster. I personally think Manning's arm is shot.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:55 pm

Angels wrote:
Mariners wrote:
Rockies wrote:If they get rid of Manning, who plays QB?

Osweiler. Not necessarily a good option, but he's next man up.
If they don't get rid of Manning who do they have if he looks like the last half of the season versus the first half.

Then you have 19 milion in sunk costs versus spending that elsewhere to improve as a whole. If you take 19 mil and get another 3-4 quality roleplayers, Brock has the cannon to throw anywhere on the field and then it is just a matter of can he manage a game and not have to necessarily be put on the hook to win one every week. Teams do luck into this method and succeed even if that was not option #1.

Yup. Shit, you don't plan on making one of the best QBs of all time out of the guy you drafted in the sixth round.

And re: Cowboys, wonky rule, right call. I won't say bad rule, because how do you rewrite it? A catch is like art or pornography, you know it when you see it, but not everyone sees the same thing.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:07 pm

You make an exception for the guy who cradles a one handed catch, you have a 2 step rule (remember Pereira saying the steps don't matter? They should, add it to the rule), etc. etc. The game is better if that's a catch. The good news is those Lions fans who say the game was fixed can now shut up permanently.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:11 pm

Giants wrote:You make an exception for the guy who cradles a one handed catch, you have a 2 step rule (remember Pereira saying the steps don't matter? They should, add it to the rule), etc. etc. The game is better if that's a catch. The good news is those Lions fans who say the game was fixed can now shut up permanently.

The spin on that is the home field advantage and if that game was in Dallas maybe it would have been a catch just like if the game was in Detroit last week, maybe that flag would have been enforced.

Fans matter...even if they don't.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:18 pm

Giants wrote:You make an exception for the guy who cradles a one handed catch, you have a 2 step rule (remember Pereira saying the steps don't matter? They should, add it to the rule), etc. etc. The game is better if that's a catch. The good news is those Lions fans who say the game was fixed can now shut up permanently.

You don't if the ball hits the ground and the player loses control of it.