Sports: NFL

[Crixus33]

Originally Posted by Balantai

I completely agree, D_S. That block was completely uncalled for and he deserves to be fined. The Steelers have always built extreme intensity into their teams and unfortunately, the same thing that makes the team great often translates to unnecessary roughness. As a Ravens fan, you should understand. I hope Kevin Huber makes a speedy recovery.

Spoiler Alert!

Bengals fans are still a bunch of cry-baby whiners, though.

Hey I represent that spoiler.

But on a more serious note I'm really worried for Huber, maybe I'm being a little over-reactive, but any injury to the spine is dangerous and potentially life changing. Luckily he walked off the field so I would guess his injury isn't as bad as it sounds.

Spoiler Alert!

For those who are wondering why I'm talking about his spine when on the field it appeared to be only a jaw injury, he was examined and they found two fractured vertebrate (vertebrae?).

[greygnarl]

It didn't look like a head to head hit at first, just helmet to chest, and so when we saw the blood my dad thought he had bit off his tongue. Not sure if that would've been better.

[XDVincent]

I'm pretty sure he (huber) has a broken jaw.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

As a sympathetic outsider, Bats, I think your need for a coach may be overshadowed by your need for a quarterback. It's one thing to put up yards, it's another thing to put up wins.

Do you think Romo is the biggest issue in Dallas as well? Also, how many miserable games has Flacco put in before getting hot and going on a streak at the right time? Or Eli?

I think Stafford is extremely talented but also a bit immature. I think he has the physical tools but needs a bit of help getting to the next level mentally. I think he's shown flashes of amazing stuff and I believe the potential there shouldn't be overlooked. I think it's worth a coaching change to try to bring that out of him because I don't believe guys like him are easy to replace (I have a Superbowl era's worth of franchise history to back that one up).

So I think we do have a need for a QB, but I think that QB is already on our roster. He just needs to play up to his potential.

[Dad_Scaper]

I could be wrong, Bats, and my feeling about Stafford is similar to my feeling about Romo. Both are good quarterbacks. Both are occasionally vulnerable to the kind of decisionmaking errors that will cost games.

I do not think Tony Romo will ever win a Suepr Bowl. I just saw a stat that in the months of December and January, Romo is 13-21. The Cowboys have lots of problems, and Romo may not be the biggest, but a Winner does not err as he did against the Packers.

I don't know how Detroit fans feel about Stafford. As a non-fan, though, I saw a QB with problems.

He and Flacco are very different; it's not a fair comparison. Flacco has won more games than any other quarterback in the Super Bowl era over his first six seasons. He does not put up gaudy numbers but with the game on the line there is nobody better. IIRC I saw recently that in the final two minutes of the game, over the course of this season, his QB rating is 132 or something ridiculous like that. He's had games with several turnovers but not many. In the postseason last year he had zero accompanying his 11 touchdown passes.

But he doesn't put up fantasy numbers, like Stafford or Romo might occasionally. I doubt he ever will. I don't think you can glean much from comparing them, but if you want to, I will say this: Playing from behind, desperate for points, Flacco hit Jacoby Jones over the middle to convert a 3d and 15. Playing from behind Stafford, in the 4th quarter, did lead a touchdown drive but also threw a pair of avoidable interceptions.

They aren't the same style of quarterback. I don't encourage the comparison. Perhaps we can just agree that Stafford needed to be more careful with the ball in the second half, this past Monday night.

[dok]

I hate the Cowboys and enjoy to see them fail, but the criticism that gets heaped on Romo is just ridiculous. The team has had a good offense the entire time he's been there. His stats are fantastic, and he passes the "eye test" of not being a product of the players around him easily.

The problem with that team is bad defense, and that's really pretty obvious. How many QBs in this era have a track record of consistently winning their divisions while saddled with a bad defense, and the associated pressure of playing from behind or having to win shootouts? Only one. Let's not draw and quarter Romo for not being Peyton Manning.

FWIW I do think the problem in Detroit is the coaching. A team can only seem undisciplined for so long before you trace it to the guy in charge. It's hard to judge Stafford when he gets to throw to Calvin Johnson; his stats probably overrate him but I think he's a pretty good QB.

[Dad_Scaper]

The Dallas Cowboys under Tony Romo are 1-5 in "win or go home" games starting Week 17 or beyond. You want to talk about stats, or defense (this year), go ahead.

"Tony Romo has 7 interceptions in losses with team tied or up by 1 possession in 4th quarter/OT, nearly twice as many as any QB since ’06.
— SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) December 16, 2013"

I'm not saying Romo is bad. He's not. You can't be 13-21 in December & January, or 1-5 in "win or go home" games, and be a championship quarterback, though.

I suppose I'm biased because I watch a lot of AFC North football, but in my division we tend not to get dazzled by quarterbacks who put up 350 yards and 4 touchdowns to go with 2 picks and a loss.

About Schwartz: I like the guy. When he was a coordinator in Tennessee he used to call in every week to a local sports talk radio station here and it was good radio. They played Judas Priest for his intro because that was his thing. For the Lions, he taught one of the hardest things in sports: How to stop losing. It may be time for him to go, but I hope he's remembered kindly by the fans. Or some of them, anyway.

[greygnarl]

I think Tony Romo trying to put a mediocre team over the top. He feels like he has to do too much.

[Dad_Scaper]

I think there is a lot of truth to that. A lot. When guys like Romo (Stafford) press, bad things sometimes happen.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I think there is a lot of truth to that. A lot. When guys like Romo (Stafford) press, bad things sometimes happen.

As opposed to Joe Flacco and his 17 interceptions (leading the non-Meadowlands NFL)? Does Flacco have the ability to avoid throwing them "when the game is on the line"? If so, why doesn't he just use that ability all the time?

[Dad_Scaper]

I am not talking about yards/touchdowns/interceptions, dok. Behind only Tom Brady and Ben Roethlissberger, no active quarterback in the league has as many postseason victories as Flacco, and this is his sixth season. He has won more road playoff games than any quarterback ever.

Last year he threw, as I posted upthread, 11 touchdowns to zero interceptions. That was a record of some sort as well, though atm I can't put my finger on it.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I am not talking about yards/touchdowns/interceptions, dok. Behind only Tom Brady and Ben Roethlissberger, no active quarterback in the league has as many postseason victories as Flacco, and this is his sixth season. He has won more road playoff games than any quarterback ever.

Last year he threw, as I posted upthread, 11 touchdowns to zero interceptions. That was a record of some sort as well, though atm I can't put my finger on it.

That is just fantastic D_S. Your resolve that it is not about TDs and INTs lasted a whole paragraph before you couldn't resist citing a favorable stat for Flacco that involved TDs and INTs.

Of course, you're quite right to cite his amazing stats in the 2012/13 postseason. He was historically great in the playoffs last year, and that phenomenal four game run was a huge reason why they won the title. But that greatness shows up in the stats. The deeper you dig into advanced stats (take your pick: passer rating, QBR, adjusted net yards per attempt, defense-adjusted yards above replacement, expected points added, winning percentage added, etc...) the more clear it is what a great run that was. The stats do a perfectly fine job recognizing that Flacco was great.

The "problem" is that the same really applies to every other game he's played. Joe Flacco has won a ton of games in his career to this point because he's a pretty good QB who has spent his entire career on a team with a very good defense. He also played out-of-his-mind amazing last year in the playoffs and carried, honestly, one of the weaker teams of his tenure in Baltimore to the title.

Football is actually played by very large rosters of players, most of whom are not the starting quarterbacks. It turns out that those other players have a large impact on wins and losses, too. Measuring QBs by their team wins, or constructing narratives about QB play by working backwards from the final results, is and has always been a folly.

(The playoffs are more of a crapshoot than people like to admit. The titles of both Mannings, Brady, and Rodgers, to name four, were also not won by the best teams that they've led. But the circumstances don't matter; the flag flies forever. Really, who cares if that wasn't the best Ravens team of the last 7 seasons or if Flacco doesn't usually play that well? They won the freaking title, and that's the goal.)