NFL Week 14 - Dolphins? More like LOLphins! Amirite?

[Grenouille 0]

Members of the fraternity of former University of Miami players cast a wide net across our society. So while Sean Taylor's ghost has yet to affect the outcome of a football game, it's entirely possible that he's affected, say, a race riot at the Florida state penitentiary. Or aided a successful drive-by shooting.

 

Sean already has affected a football game. It was just that he liked Vince Wilfork and Brandon Meriweather more than the Raven Canes. However Sean couldn't help Brandon catch the sure interception that he helped steer to him.

[Kinetic 0]

Yeah, I guess Testaverde won a game on Sunday. Meast was strong within him.

[Guest My Pal, the Tortoise]

You can't deny that it made the Redskins fight harder, though, if calling an illegal timeout and failing to score a touchdown constitutes fighting harder. Observing rules and scoring points? That's easy; they do that shit every week. 15-yard penalties on geriatric brainfarts are the things you only see when you have inspiration pushing you over the edge.

[Mike wanna be 0]

Making a Hall of Fame coach forget the rules and do whatever he damn well pleases is the clearest sign of heavenly Hurricane influence known to man.

 

Alternatively if I wanted to be less classy I could say "Now Redskins fans know what it's like to get shot in the crotch".

[Broward83 0]

We learned today that Brian Griese lost his starting job because he offended Lovie Smith and Ron Turner by claiming to have engineered the game-winning drive against the Eagles. Lovie was just looking for an excuse to take Griese out and put Grossman, his guy, back in. I'm sick of this idiot.

 

Where'd you hear that from? I tried searching the Sun-Times and Trib online, but couldn't find anything.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Good time to start thinking playoff picture:

 

Division Leaders

 

New England (PIT/NYJ/MIA/@NYG)

Indianapolis (@BAL/@OAK/HOU/TEN)

Pittsburgh (@NE/JAC/@STL/@BAL)

San Diego (@TEN/DET/DEN/@OAK)

 

Dallas (@DET/PHI/@CAR/@WAS)

Green Bay (OAK/@STL/@CHI/DET)

Seattle (ARI/@CAR/BAL/@ATL)

Tampa Bay (@HOU/ATL/@SF/CAR)

 

Current Wildcard Leaders

 

Jacksonville (CAR/@PIT/OAK/@HOU)

Cleveland (@NYJ/BUF/@CIN/SF)

 

New York (@PHI/WAS/@BUF/NE)

Clusterfuck

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Let's see. New England has clinched. Indy has their division in their clutches; only a potentially tough Baltimore this week and an always difficult divisional game with Tennessee. Neither Oakland nor Houston frighten me. I think they'll win out and take the second seed. Pittsburgh has a pretty tough road ahead of them. New England and Jacksonville is a really brutal pair of games, then they have a short week into the dome @ STL, and Baltimore would LOVE to play spoiler and maybe wreck their seeding or give the division to Cleveland if they play well. I think the Steelers win three of them and take the third seed. I'd like to take the odds and say San Diego holds on to the west, but they have a monday night game against Denver, who has two home games and a visit to Houston left. KC and Oakland are toast. Whoever takes this division should be pissing their pants at the prospect of playing Jacksonville in the first round.

 

I'm not sure if I'm buying Cleveland yet. I can't say who else I think has a shot to get in there. I doubt Buffalo even more, Denver is iffy, and the Titans still play two division leaders and have to go to Arrowhead. Whoever gets this playoff spot is getting creamed in Pittsburgh in January, though.

 

For the NFC, all I'm certain of is that the Giants are losing three of their last four if not all of them, and fucking themselves into a first round game @ Seattle.

[Guest]

In the NFC, I'd say the Lions are toast. Their schedule is brutal. Arizona's isn't tough at all, but they're the Cardinals, so they'll fuck it up. Minnesota has Adrian Peterson. He stays healthy, they get in. QB or no QB. It would be embarassing for them NOT to get in with that lineup of games. 49ers, Bears, Redskins and Broncos. Any of the other teams, probably including the Cardinals, would pound right through that lineup and get in for sure.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm almost not even sure the Giants get in at this point, but even if they do fuck up a few games from here on out, they still have the tiebreaker with Chicago and Detroit, so they're probably done. Getting the shit kicked out of them by Minnesota was bad, though. That might even knock them out and put Arizona in, however I think the only way that happens is if they lose their next two games (@Philly, at home against Washington). By now, if you have more than 6 losses, you can forget about the playoffs in either conference. I think the AFC is set, and the NFC is okay barring an even worse collapse by NY than in years past. I called Minnesota being a surprise team a few weeks ago, when they played at Dallas and for a while they played them damn close.

 

So that would give us a wild-card matchup of Tampa Bay-Minnesota and Seattle-New York. FEEL THE EXCITEMENT~ Personally, it'd be more fun if it was the other way around. Tampa Bay-New York and Seattle-Minnesota could be good games. San Diego-Cleveland and Jacksonville-Pittsburgh would be great games to watch, too, especially if San Diego can go to New England in the divisional round and take revenge for last year. The Super Bowl would be a total crapshoot in that case.

 

Of course, I'm thinking far too ahead here. I'm just interested in seeing how the Packers respond to their toughest loss this season against Oakland, and of course hoping that Pittsburgh takes out New England along with everyone else outside of the Northeast.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I'll say this, and stand by it 100% all the way until my demise, if New England loses in the playoffs, the Colts are winning back to back.

[cabbageboy 0]

Hell I don't know if it requires the Patriots losing to someone else for the Colts to get back to the Super Bowl. A healthy Colts team would certainly have a real shot at winning, even if it was in New England.

 

The Patriots this year will experience something that they haven't had to deal with before, namely being that absolute unquestioned "team to beat." That sounds odd for a team that's won 3 SBs, but were the Patriots ever exactly THE team in any of those years? Obviously in 2001 they were pretty far off the radar and certainly not a favorite. In 2003 I'd say the focus was on the Chiefs and their ultra hot start, Manning and McNair fighting over the MVP award, even the Cowboys revival under Parcells for a time. The Patriots just kinda....won games. In 2004 I don't even think the Pats were really THE unquestioned team, since the Steelers were 15-1 and had homefield and Manning was setting TD records.

 

But this year? The Patriots are the team to beat without question, they are the story. For the first time they will have everyone gunning for them all out desperately wanting to be the team to beat them.

[Kinetic 0]

They were that team the year they beat Philadelphia in the Super Bowl. Remember that epic winning streak?

[AboveAverage484 0]

KC @ DEN: Broncos are another baffling team,

 

Agreed, I'm glad they haven't shown as many of their games on TV this year, as I would get extremely frustrated. At least the last two they have shown around here were good wins (Pittsburgh, Tennessee).

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I found this stat interesting...

 

Through 12 games, the Patriots have a PF vs. PA differential of 260. For comparison, the 1985 Bears had 258, the 1984 49ers had 248, the 1991 Redskins had 261, and the 1996 Packers had 246. The 1998 Vikings were also at 260.

 

If the Patriots keep this up, they could be one of the best regular season teams ever in terms of point differential.

[Red Baron 0]

Only the Vikings didn't win a Superbowl that year.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Only the Vikings didn't win a Superbowl that year.

 

Thus my emphasis on regular season....

[Guest Vitamin X]

You know, at the time I couldn't have been happier to gloat in the face of many a Viking fan about the 98 team, but over time I've come around to actually wishing that they had beaten the stupid Falcons and set us up with a great "Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object" game against the Broncos and possibly keep Horseface from winning a second title. Instead, we got the Falcons in the Super Bowl who were clearly overmatched by a superior team.

 

Also, the 2004 Pats were by far the best team this decade until this year's New England squad. It's kind of like, 1984 Niners:2004 Pats::1989 Niners::2007 Pats. The 2004 team solidified them as the team of the decade, and now the 2007 team is just trying to be one of the best ever.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

They were that team the year they beat Philadelphia in the Super Bowl. Remember that epic winning streak?

 

Maybe, but they didn't have the best record. They played the AFC Championship on the road in Pittsburgh. I'd say the year before was when they really established their dominance and were the undisputed best team in the league.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The Patriots have their own little thing on the ESPNEWS ticker

 

It goes NHL/NFL/PATRIOTS/NCAAF

[theintensifier 0]

The 1991 Redskins.

 

They were a phenomenal team, going 14-2, and losing to the Cowboys (11-5) and Eagles (10-6). They had the hands down best offense, and the second best defense to the Saints (wow, didn't realize the Saints used to be so good). Minus the two losses, they only had three close games, the rest were squashes. They then squashed the Falcons (10-6) in the divisional playoff game, and then HHH squashed the Lions in the NFC championship game (they blanked the Lions (12-4) in the regular season 45-0). They then beat the Buffalo Bills (13-3) by thirteen in the Super Bowl.

 

Mark "the Ripper" Rypien had two fantastic Wide Receivers in Art Monk and Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders wasn't a slouch either. Clark was second in the league for reception yards, Monk was fifth. Earnest Byner was the "star" half-back, rushing for over 1,000 yards, and ranking fifth in the league for yards.

 

Cannot forget the "Capitol Punishment" defense.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Looking at the 1985 Bears... WTH was up with Tampa Bay?? The Bears beat them 38-28 to open the season, then 27-19 only 4 weeks later. They also had a few close calls score wise (beat Green Bay by 6, beat Indy by 7).

 

Wow... the '85 Tampa team was feisty despite going 2-14 on the year. They lost 5 games by a TD or less and lost to the Bears by 10 and 8, and the 5-11 Colts by 8.

 

They also lost to the Dolphins 41-38... although the Patriots beat them 32-14. Just seems really out of place that Tampa Bay seemed to play Chicago and Miami so well (esp. the Bears twice).

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The Patriots this year will experience something that they haven't had to deal with before, namely being that absolute unquestioned "team to beat." That sounds odd for a team that's won 3 SBs, but were the Patriots ever exactly THE team in any of those years? Obviously in 2001 they were pretty far off the radar and certainly not a favorite. In 2003 I'd say the focus was on the Chiefs and their ultra hot start, Manning and McNair fighting over the MVP award, even the Cowboys revival under Parcells for a time. The Patriots just kinda....won games. In 2004 I don't even think the Pats were really THE unquestioned team, since the Steelers were 15-1 and had homefield and Manning was setting TD records.

 

I'd say they were the unquestioned team to beat in both the '03 and '04 Super Bowl runs. That 2003 team ran off 15 straight wins to end the year after starting 2-2 and did it soundly. After the Chiefs flamed out by mid-season, New England cake-walked to the title.

 

The 2004 team was a monster and put up the longest winning streak in league history. They lost a game at Pittsburgh and a fluke one to Miami but ripped up everyone else along the way. I know the offense wasn't as explosive, but this was the team that got the buzz word "dynasty" attached to it. How could you discount that?

 

The McNair/Manning, Parcells and Chiefs stuff were just interesting stories. The Patriots were still the top dogs at the time.

[Brett Favre 0]

They weren't the top dog cause they didn't get respect.

[Guest Vitamin X]

[Guest My Pal, the Tortoise]

Here are some examples of what I mean when I talk about Lovie Smith and third-rate subterfuge:

 

So Brian Urlacher is injured. He knows it, Lovie knows it, we know it, the announcers know it. Lovie announces that Brian Urlacher is okay, and the Bears do not play injured players. Then, Brian Urlacher tells Jay Glazer that he has an arthritic back. Oops.

 

Fred Miller is an offensive lineman who is old and bad. He stayed in the lineup despite being old and bad for a remarkably long time, as is the case with bad Bears players, until he was pulled from the game with an "ankle injury," despite no visible injury to the ankle on the play. Lovie announced that Fred Miller was out indefinitely with this "ankle injury," and John St. Clair would take his place. However, on Sunday afternoon, Fred Miller, out indefinitely, was not deactivated for this or further games. In fact, he was dressed on the sidelines, ready to come in if St. Clair was egregiously bad enough to be pulled for the erstwhile starter. "But wait!", you say. "The Bears do not play injured players!" Well, they do, and they don't, I guess. They play their injured players who aren't "injured," and they bench their "injured" players who aren't. It's a tangled web of lies that makes Jimmy from I Accuse My Parents seem like he has it all under control.

 

I know. Both instances are totally inconsequential. THAT'S MY POINT. Just be honest. There's no sense in trying to hide anything or trying to pull some weak sleight-of-hand on us. You're managing a sieve here. There are too many reporters, too many inside sources, and too many high expectations for everyone to just allow this clowning around to continue. Look, I know where Lovie is coming from: the college game, and Tampa Bay. The former, you're held accountable for practically nothing, and the latter is hardly a media pressure cooker. He's used to the media being an arm of the team, which here, they are not. If he doesn't like getting caught in dopey verbal hypocrisy by people who have set a high bar for on-field performance and straight-shooting rhetoric, then he can go coach in Critter Ass, Arkansas, where every idea he has will be brilliant and untouchable, and every silly lie will be gleefully accepted as "what's best for The Program" and "best for the fans." His act won't last much longer unless we see drastic on-field improvements and a drastic overhaul in how he approaches in-game strategy.

[theintensifier 0]

Nice post.

 

I've always wondered why certain pro players will play with a life debilitating/altering injury, but others will sit out with turf toe?

[theintensifier 0]

Now, I realize that turf toe is a serious problem for backs/receivers, who need to make split second cuts and spins. I don't understand with lineman. The sharpest cut they'll ever make is when they make a pulling block, and that's not that often quick and precise.

 

I had turf toe in high school. It is painful, but taping the big toe is an effective way to cure/avoid that type of injury.

[NoCalMike 0]

The 1991 Redskins.

 

They were a phenomenal team, going 14-2, and losing to the Cowboys (11-5) and Eagles (10-6). They had the hands down best offense, and the second best defense to the Saints (wow, didn't realize the Saints used to be so good). Minus the two losses, they only had three close games, the rest were squashes. They then squashed the Falcons (10-6) in the divisional playoff game, and then HHH squashed the Lions in the NFC championship game (they blanked the Lions (12-4) in the regular season 45-0). They then beat the Buffalo Bills (13-3) by thirteen in the Super Bowl.

 

Mark "the Ripper" Rypien had two fantastic Wide Receivers in Art Monk and Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders wasn't a slouch either. Clark was second in the league for reception yards, Monk was fifth. Earnest Byner was the "star" half-back, rushing for over 1,000 yards, and ranking fifth in the league for yards.

 

Cannot forget the "Capitol Punishment" defense.

 

Yeah most people overlook the 1991 Redskins as an all-time team of dominance because the team consisted of mainly two types of players, either you were an old veteren and this was your last run, or you were a young guy that had a hell of a season but made little noise after that season and were either on a different team or out of the league. However for that single year, captured in time, they were very dominant.

 

Guys from that squad that went on to high-profile careers afterwards, Brian Mitchell........that is about it. Keenan McCardell was actually on the Redskins that year, they drafted him but he was on IR, and gone the following year, so technically he had a good career, just not as a Redskin. Ken Harvey was pretty good but he played on a Redskins squad that went onto to have one of it's worst ten years in franchise history....

 

Onto present times.....I see the Bears have put Grossman back in, well considering the Skins can't cover the middle of the field past 15 yards, Grossman can throw three picks, and lose five fumbles, but all it will take is one play to burn the Redskins in the 4th quarter........UGH.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

That Saints defense from 1991 featured what many people feel is the best LB core of all time.

[Red Baron 0]

Most of us remember the Saints as the team with the paper bags and half filled stadium.