NFL/Superbowl/Playoffs - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/09/2008 09:49:28 PM · #176

We are talking from different planets here...

R.

neophyte

Nikon D810

01/09/2008 09:51:23 PM · #177

Things are great on planet Giants! (at least until Sunday!)

01/09/2008 10:02:44 PM · #178

If you didn't mean throw a game, then how, oh how did do you suggest the teams you alluded to in your post below managed to not have a perfect season?

Its not brain science! Most teams do it, and all the ones with any heart at all. Run the ball, call a play that hasn't been called in a while, move the ball, kick a field goal, take some practice drills.

Look at the man on the opposite side of the ball, he wouldn't do the crap Brady has for personal records.

Thats why he is so inspirational, admired, and well-liked. His name is Favre.

Message edited by author 2008-01-09 22:04:57.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF for Pentax

01/09/2008 10:06:12 PM · #179

Well, his name is "Favre", not "Farve". And that Brady guy had a couple games this year where he used running plays over and over again. he coulda beat that record by a LOT more if he'd wanted to. And don't forget that in the last game, his record-setting pass went to Randy Moss, who also was one shy of an NFL record...

I can't BELIEVE the amount of smash-mouth that is going on here, as if there's something WRONG with an undefeated season and a basket of all-time records.

Like I say, different planets...

R.

Nobody

Pentax K-S2

01/09/2008 10:09:54 PM · #180

Originally posted by Bugzeye:

Wouldn't be surpised if he gets hit low a few times on Saturday. Jacksonville guys play right on the line between fair and dirty. Brady could get his bell ding'd

I take issue with that. We have a reputation for being tough and hard hitting, but not dirty.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/09/2008 10:46:36 PM · #181

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

as if there's something WRONG with an undefeated season and a basket of all-time records.

Nothing wrong with that at all. Some people don't like how they did it. You do. Life goes on.

01/09/2008 11:05:08 PM · #182

Well, his name is "Favre", not "Farve"

I wonder if anybody had it confused with another guy in an NFL thread, with close to the same spelling. LOL.

How is it pronounced there anyway?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/09/2008 11:10:30 PM · #183

Yer right tho, New England has some records now! The ones that define a bunch of ego maniacs.

Different planets indeed!

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/09/2008 11:52:43 PM · #184

Originally posted by sacredspirit:

Yer right tho, New England has some records now! The ones that define a bunch of ego maniacs.

Different planets indeed!

I seem to recall a few years ago Mike Holmgren putting Shaun Alexander back into a meaningless game after the starters had been benched just so he could get the rushing touchdown record.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/10/2008 12:48:29 AM · #185

Originally posted by sacredspirit:

How is it pronounced there anyway?

It's pronounced "Farve" (rhymes with cutting up a turkey) but is spelled F-a-v-r-e -- French is probably second only to English as the language in which the spelling bears so little relation to pronunciation ... as an example, consider two people associated with major league baseball:

Jim Lefebvre Second Base 1965 - Present (now a coach) -- pronounced "Le Fever"
Joe Lefebvre Outfielder 1980 - 1986 -- pronounced "Le Fay"

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/10/2008 01:41:42 AM · #186

I agree with the sentiment way up there in the thread: the place to be this weekend is watching Seattle & Green Bay. Ought to be a hell of a game, especially if both offensive and defensive squads on both teams show up mentally. No time to be looking beyond THIS PARTICULAR GAME. If both teams play up to their best potential ... well it ought to be freaking awesome.

And I still think the Pats are toast this weekend. Upset of the century. You heard it here first, even if it's not true. :)

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/10/2008 08:56:48 AM · #187

OK, time for my picks.

Divisional weekend is arguably the best weekend of football all year. By Sunday night, we'll know who the best two teams in each conference are. Conventional wisdom since about week 4 of the season has held that those teams are a no-brainer, Colts-Pats in the AFC and Cowboys-Packers in the NFC, and those four teams are all favored to win this weekend. However, the divisional round of the playoffs almost always results in at least one huge stunner of an upset. It would be easy just to play the percentages and pick the four favorites, but who has the guts to call an upset?

I do.

Seattle at Green Bay
Coming into Lambeau in January without a running game? Forget about it. Pack wins
Green Bay 31-20

Jacksonville at New England
The Jags are hot, and I made a mistake by not picking them to beat the Steelers last week. I just didn't think anyone could handle the Steelers twice in one month in Pittsburgh. My mistake. However, The Patriots are just too well prepared, too well coached, and too disciplined to let the Jags oust them this week. Pats win.
Patriots 34-24

San Diego at Indianapolis
Here it is folks, the upset special. Who's hot? Finally, the Chargers. Rivers has been looking good and the Chargers have won their last 7 games after a 5-5 start to the season. The Colts have been without Harrison for nearly the whole season and have rested their starters, at least a little, in their last two games - a strategy which has usually failed for Dungy. Also, the Chargers are on a two game winning streak vs. the Colts, forcing Manning into multiple errors in their regular season game this year. I expect the Chargers' defense and special teams to show up in a big way on Sunday, plus a hefty dose of LT on offense. Chargers win an upset shocker.
Chargers 34-31

New York at Dallas
I'm tempted to pick this as an upset too, but what do you think I am, crazy? The major element in this game, I think, is the relative inexperience of Manning (the lesser) and Romo. Romo, of course, had his big gaffe in the Seattle game last year, costing the Cowboys a trip to the conference championship. Manning is, well, Manning. He played great against the Patriots in week 17, looked nearly infallable against the Bucs. Can he come up big in a third straight big game? Then there's the fact that the Cowboys have beaten the Giants twice already this season. Can they make it three in a row? Sheesh. I have to pick the Cowboys at home here, even with a diminished T.O. The 'Boys have a lot of weapons and I think their defense will have a scheme to spook Manning the lesser and force him into his mistake-prone deer-in-the-headlights mode. Cowboys win big.
Cowboys 35-13

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/10/2008 09:02:35 AM · #188

Originally posted by sacredspirit:

So, that's how teams intentionally lose? If they intend to lose, how is that any different than throwing a game?

Giving anything less than 100% for 60 minutes on game day is disrespecting the game itself. Ask any player from any team if they expect less from their teammates and from themselves.

01/10/2008 11:06:28 AM · #189

Coming into Lambeau in January without a running game? Forget about it. Pack wins

Without a running game? I guess a healthy former league MVP is chop liver. C'mon at least a (moderate) run game.

Not to mention, two dynamite corners in Trufont, and Grant, and a D-line that spells disaster for GB's passing game.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/10/2008 11:12:52 AM · #190

So, that's how teams intentionally lose? If they intend to lose, how is that any different than throwing a game?

You know intentionally lose is big words, all I meant to say, and think I did say is kicking a man while he is down is not cool.

You don't have to lose the game, per say. But you can win a game @ 2-0, so why this 52-10 or whatever.

Were they scared the opponent would come back to win?
Better yet, were they scared they wouldn't look good enough?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

01/10/2008 11:54:36 AM · #191

Originally posted by sacredspirit:

You still haven't answered how and why a team that could have had a perfect season, would intentionally not do so out of respect for the game. How did do it without intentionally losing? How is that showing respect for the game?

Why not run up the score? Do you think the other team is going to let up when they're down by 40 in the 4th quarter? Why not just call the game at halftime?

Message edited by author 2008-01-10 11:55:05.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/10/2008 12:08:42 PM · #192

Originally posted by sacredspirit:

Coming into Lambeau in January without a running game? Forget about it. Pack wins

Without a running game? I guess a healthy former league MVP is chop liver. C'mon at least a (moderate) run game.

Alexander's rushing title a few years ago hasn't helped him this year. He only had 46 yards on 15 rushes vs the Redskins. Add to that two recpetions for -1 yard. Morris gained 13 yards on 4 carries. Their (forget his name) fullback had the only rushing TD on his only carry. That's not just vs. the Skins either. Alexander has been virtually a no-show this year all around.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2008 12:11:47 PM · #193

Originally posted by strangeghost:

Seattle at Green Bay
Coming into Lambeau in January without a running game? Forget about it. Pack wins
Green Bay 31-20

I'm not sure why this myth gets perpetuated. It's not like Green Bay has a running game either. Are they going to lose because of it?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2008 12:14:09 PM · #194

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by strangeghost:

Seattle at Green Bay
Coming into Lambeau in January without a running game? Forget about it. Pack wins
Green Bay 31-20

I'm not sure why this myth gets perpetuated. It's not like Green Bay has a running game either. Are they going to lose because of it?

No. But Green Bay has Favre and home field, and Seattle needs a running to game to beat them. If they can run they have a chance. If they can't, they don't. Green Bay can probably win without a strong running game in this particular matchup. Gonna be a good game.

R.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/10/2008 12:23:52 PM · #195

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by strangeghost:

Seattle at Green Bay
Coming into Lambeau in January without a running game? Forget about it. Pack wins
Green Bay 31-20

I'm not sure why this myth gets perpetuated. It's not like Green Bay has a running game either. Are they going to lose because of it?

No. But Green Bay has Favre and home field, and Seattle needs a running to game to beat them. If they can run they have a chance. If they can't, they don't. Green Bay can probably win without a strong running game in this particular matchup. Gonna be a good game.

R.

Really I'm not so much of a homer to realize this is probably the truth, BUT I do think Seattle is capable of winning. Their sad playoff road record is probably the biggest thing against them. I do think Green Bay is going to need some sort of a running game though. If not, the Seattle rush is going to tee off on Favre each and every play. That exact thing happened to Washington. Portis couldn't run the ball and this allowed Seattle to blitz early and often. If it's wiley Favre that shows up, he'll be able to pick up the blitzes and complete the West Coast Offense's favorite 4 yard slant with devestating results. If it's old man Favre that shows up, the one that isn't mobile at all and doesn't think clearly, he'll be hit all game and wind up throwing a number of those up-for-grabs lobs waiting to be sucked up by Tatupu like a vaccuum cleaner.

Bugzeye

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

01/10/2008 12:34:52 PM · #196

I am not sure how many Packer games the rest of you have seen this year. But if you were not paying attention. The Packers do have a running game and Ryan Grant is very capable of busting loose on any play. Like I said above he only started in 9 games and nearly hit the 1000 mark. Would have definately passed 1000 if he didn't get that stinger in the last game. People get excited when a back records 2000 yards in a season. Not sure why you wouldn't feel the same way about a back that is proven capable of pounding out a 1000 in half a season

Alexander is good but he is definately not up to 100%.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/10/2008 12:40:26 PM · #197

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No running game? Grant got nearly 1000 yards and 8 td in 8.5 games. He wasn't the starter until week 7! And he only averaged 5.1 yards per carry. And Jackson is not a bad back up (was originally the starter).

edit to add link

//www.packers.com/team/players/grant_ryan/

Message edited by author 2008-01-10 12:48:36.

Bugzeye

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

01/10/2008 01:11:51 PM · #198

The local media is reporting Favre will return next year for another season.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2008 01:15:03 PM · #199

I just love it. The peanut gallery seems to want it both ways. What do you guys make of this?

Total rushing yards:
Seattle: 1619
Green Bay: 1597

So, which is it? Does Seattle have no running game (and by extension neither does Green Bay)? Or does Green Bay have a running game (and by extension so does Seattle)? Or do Green Bay's yards somehow magically count for more?