2015 NFL Playoffs

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:18 pm

The ball moves is different from the player loses control. Something that says you can trap the ball on a leaping one handed catch as long as your hand stays completely on top of the ball is easy to enforce.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:50 pm

Giants wrote:The ball moves is different from the player loses control. Something that says you can trap the ball on a leaping one handed catch as long as your hand stays completely on top of the ball is easy to enforce.

The ball didn't just "move". Bryant clearly lost control after it hit the ground, then as he rolled over he was able to grab it and secure it with both hands again.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:02 pm

Even if it was a catch, I think Rodgers marches them right down the field to the winning score anyway. He got them in field goal range to kill the clock

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:35 pm

The ball moved because the player lost control of it. The rule is a pain in the ass, but there isn't a viable fix for it that is any less flawed than the current rule. He clearly didn't maintain control. It's an incompletion.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:36 pm

Cardinals wrote:Even if it was a catch, I think Rodgers marches them right down the field to the winning score anyway. He got them in field goal range to kill the clock

I agree 100%.

Brewers · Post by **Brewers** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:49 am

Padres wrote: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.

I'm with you. Manning is likable and goofy off the field but I've always disliked him when he's got his helmet on. If he retires this year he'll retire knowing he killed Brady as an SNL host. The Colts are fun to watch and Luck seems to have that winner gene. Its going to be a good game, go Pats. I'm surprised no one has weighed in on Harbaugh's whining about the receiver ineligible plays.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:55 am

For the Conference Championship Round:
Green Bay over Seattle: Like I've said before, I think this is Rodgers' year, even with the calf injury. This will be a close one though.
Patriots over the Colts: The Colts don't have the defense the Ravens do (not by a long shot) and the Pats are a whole level above the Broncos team Indy faced last week in almost every way. And until Luck proves he can beat the Pats, you can't pick any other way. That day will come, but not this weekend. The Pats in a blowout.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:03 am

I think Brady already addressed the substitution whining. Harbaugh should go read the rule book. Like the double pass, it was sneaky, but it was completely legal.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:13 am

Conference Championship Round:

Seattle over Green Bay: Russell Wilson is something like 7-0 versus Brady, Manning, Rodgers and Brees. That streak continues. Seattle is the one defense that has the ability to cover the GB receiving corps and slow that GB offense down. A limited mobility Rodgers is not a good thing against that Seattle front seven. Green Bay will have to sell their soul to stack the box and stop Lynch, which will result in another solid game by Wilson as he takes down another media darling.

Patriots over Colts: I really have no vested interest in this one. A "Young Guns" matchup of Luck versus Wilson the following week would be entertaining. Carving another knotch in Wilson's young legacy by getting the chance to knock off Manning and Brady in back to back Super Bowls would be a nice addition to Wilson's young legacy, as well. I think the Pats keep finding a way to sneak by and will continue to do so this weekend setting up an epic Seahawks versus Pats Super Bowl.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:18 am

If Rodgers were at full strength, I'd give picking Green Bay some thought. I just can't see a one-legged Rodgers going into and winning. The game will stay close into the 3rd, but Seahawks pull away for a comfortable win.

I don't think the Colts have enough to beat the Patriots this year, either. Jonas Gray isn't going to run for 200 yards again, but I expect Indy will see plenty of Blount and Gray on Sunday. Patriots win, but it'll probably be closer than the game in Indy.

As for saying it's dumb to pick the Ravens, Dan pretty much put it best. It's just statistically unwise to pick against the Patriots in Foxboro. Great game, though, and easily the best football game I've ever attended. That game was much, much more fun to be at than the Texans game two years ago, or the Colts game last year.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:34 am

I'm not much into football, but being engaged to a cheese head has had me watching a lot of Packers games, so I usually pull for them. I'd be shocked if they beat the Seahawks in Seattle. If the game was in Green Bay, maybe they'd have a shot. The Packers defense just looks like crap. I think they'll be able to contain the running game, but their secondary sucks. If Rodgers isn't 100%, he won't be able to have big enough of a game to make up for their poor defense.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:38 am

"It's just statistically unwise to pick against the Patriots in Foxboro."
I agree. Except when it's Joe Flacco's Ravens, who were 2-1 in New England in the playoffs coming into this game.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:43 am

Padres wrote:"It's just statistically unwise to pick against the Patriots in Foxboro."
I agree. Except when it's Joe Flacco's Ravens, who were 2-1 in New England in the playoffs coming into this game.

With completely different teams. Is there anything at all in common between the '09 teams and the '14 teams? Or even the '12 teams? The most recent meeting between the two happened in '13, when the Patriots went into Baltimore and kicked their ass.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:14 pm

Pirates wrote:
Padres wrote:"It's just statistically unwise to pick against the Patriots in Foxboro."
I agree. Except when it's Joe Flacco's Ravens, who were 2-1 in New England in the playoffs coming into this game.
With completely different teams. Is there anything at all in common between the '09 teams and the '14 teams? Or even the '12 teams? The most recent meeting between the two happened in '13, when the Patriots went into Baltimore and kicked their ass.

That same logic applies to your initial assertion. What does Brady's performance in the playoffs with Moss and Welker have to do with this season? About as much as the '09 Ravens game, probably less. And what does a game in Baltimore in '13 have to do with the Pats home record in the playoffs? Absolutely nothing. Sorry JP, but you sound like you're just digging yourself deeper on this one. Not only was there every reason to think the Ravens could, and even would, upset the Pats based on recent performance, they came a jump ball away from doing it after controlling the tempo of much of that game.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:56 pm

Padres wrote:
Pirates wrote:
Padres wrote:"It's just statistically unwise to pick against the Patriots in Foxboro."
I agree. Except when it's Joe Flacco's Ravens, who were 2-1 in New England in the playoffs coming into this game.
With completely different teams. Is there anything at all in common between the '09 teams and the '14 teams? Or even the '12 teams? The most recent meeting between the two happened in '13, when the Patriots went into Baltimore and kicked their ass.
That same logic applies to your initial assertion. What does Brady's performance in the playoffs with Moss and Welker have to do with this season? About as much as the '09 Ravens game, probably less. And what does a game in Baltimore in '13 have to do with the Pats home record in the playoffs? Absolutely nothing. Sorry JP, but you sound like you're just digging yourself deeper on this one. Not only was there every reason to think the Ravens could, and even would, upset the Pats based on recent performance, they came a jump ball away from doing it after controlling the tempo of much of that game.

The common thread between the Patriots' previous success in New England in the Patriots is Belichick and Brady. All other parts have changed more or less. What does Moss have to do with the price of tea in China? Moss played in four playoff games with Brady, going 2-2.

The '13 game is the most recent matchup between the two teams, and is the game that is going to feature the most similar personnel. Even then, you're right, it means very, very little, since New England revamped its defense, and Baltimore has sustained injuries in its secondary throughout the last 12-13 months as well, not to mention Steve Smith joining the team in the meantime.

None of the arguments presented as to why Baltimore would win had anything to do with what the Baltimore Ravens actually do in 2014.

Each one of you that posted that the Ravens are going to win used the logic "they give the Pats fits." You yourself even said "Fucking Ravens give them fits in the playoffs." Nate agreed saying "they give the Pats fits." Aaron: "They give the Pats fits."

As for your recent performance comment on Baltimore -- what? Week 15: squeak by Jacksonville 20-12, Week 16: lose an ugly, ugly game 25-13 at Houston, Week 17, squeak by the Browns 20-10 -- the Connor Shaw Cleveland Browns.

Did the Patriots look awesome down the stretch? Nope. Waxed Miami in Week 15, needed every last tooth and nail to beat the Jets in Week 16, before not trying in Week 17.

But it's not like Baltimore set the world on fire either. Recent performance adds nothing to tip the scales in Baltimore's favor. They beat a Steelers team without its best player in the Wild Card round. La de da.

Could somebody have made an actual argument that the Ravens were well equipped to beat the Patriots? Probably. Did anybody? No, just saying "they give the Pats fits." It's dumb.

Rockies · Post by **Rockies** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:29 am

And so is "anyone who thinks the Ravens will beat the Pats is dumb.." its not like you used some wonderful analysis and brought heaps of insight to your view either.

History of sports is littered with rivalries and teams that always play up against each other. Michigan vs Ohio State. Broncos vs Chiefs. Niners vs Seahawks. Falcons, Saints. Used to be Reds and Dodgers. Brady vs Manning. To say that the Ravens have historically given the Pats fits is not a misnomer IMO. And it wasn't out of line.

I can nearly guarantee you were wondering how foolish you were going to look for nearly 4 full quarters of this game, especially with the opening lead the Ravens took.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:36 am

Rockies wrote:I can nearly guarantee you were wondering how foolish you were going to look for nearly 4 full quarters of this game, especially with the opening lead the Ravens took.

Well, probably not during the game, I doubt JP was thinking about his IBC comments while he was at Gillette. But it was a foolish comment, regardless of the final score, based on history and how the Ravens came that close and looked that good during the game.

Pirates wrote: No, just saying "they give the Pats fits." It's dumb.

Except "giv[ing] the Pats fits" is pretty much exactly what happened on Saturday. Nice effort at deflection though. I'm curious, did anyone in the league actually agree with you on you assessment about it being insane (or whatever you said) to pick against the Pats v. Baltimore?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 4:37 pm

End of the first half, Seattle looks like shit. Worse than any team I've seen so far in the playoffs. Worse, they look rattled as a team.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:34 pm

Padres wrote:End of the first half, Seattle looks like shit. Worse than any team I've seen so far in the playoffs. Worse, they look rattled as a team.

I love it, fuck Seattle.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:30 pm

Angels wrote:
Padres wrote:End of the first half, Seattle looks like shit. Worse than any team I've seen so far in the playoffs. Worse, they look rattled as a team.
I love it, fuck Seattle.

Wow, that was a fucked up ending...GB had it and basically lost it because of a special team error.

Cubs · Post by **Cubs** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:39 pm

That was glorious, it made this Bear's fan's day to see the Green and Gold get it shoved up their giggity:

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:47 pm

I don't mind the Seahawks, but I'm fucking sick of hearing about "the twelfth man"

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:53 pm

Orioles wrote:I don't mind the Seahawks, but I'm fucking sick of hearing about "the twelfth man"

Yup. And as if they invented it.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:18 pm

7 point spread my fuzzy Irish ass...

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:07 pm

Well that was boring. Sorry Aaron, Luck's day will come, just not today.

Patriots over Seahawks is my pick. Seattle looked very vulnerable and won't be playing at home.