Balta1701

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) wasnt branch brought back to be that deep threat? Kinda, but even during the Pats glory days the Pats never really had a true deep threat and you can't really expect Branch to suddenly be that. There's a reason why that team in 2001-2004 was winning with the short, high percentage passing game combined with running and screen games. Branch was brought in more-so to be a realistic second passing option who knew the offense. He was never going to suddenly morph into DeSean Jackson just because he was back in NE.

Charles Tillman sums up the Chicago pass defense:

How much of a blow do people think Apple's stock will take tomorrow?

You know, one interesting wrinkle is that the reason why the Jets' game plan (denying the Pats their usual intermediate high percentage passing game) worked was that the Pats didn't have a legitimate deep threat. So when the Jets brought up a safety and keep their LB's over the middle to deny the Pats passes to Welker and the TE's in that area, Brady couldn't beat it by going over the top to a WR running a fly route. Of course, this is probably the first time all season that I've said a team could have used Randy Moss.

We've gotten past that point.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 09:41 AM) Wasn't this supposed to be the rebuilding year for the Pats? And next year, it'll be another Rebuilding year for the Pats. After all, they just drafted 8 guys in the first 4 rounds of the 2011 draft, you can't expect them to compete right away. Right? We're hearing that Manning is starting to slip and get old already...Brady clearly has more talent surrounding him right now (esp. given the injuries), I just haven't heard the same silliness regarding Brady yet.

QUOTE (beckham15 @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 09:43 AM) i was hearing the beginnings of it on Mike and Mike in the morning today. Last 3 playoff games all losses 5TDs compared to 4 INTs and 2 of the previous 3 gms were played at home (the other one was the superbowl against the giants) Really? I'm impressed people are bringing that up. We've heard how much Manning struggles in the playoffs for so many years, when Brady hasn't won anything since the Belichick defense started getting old.

Useless for a woman to file for divorce in Tennessee, she'd be burned at the stake.

So, when do we start hearing about how Tom Brady can't win the big one any more?

She already knows.

Link

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) EDIT: I hope I didn't just instigate Balta to perform an all day analysis on the ratings of every single NFL game ever to see if any come close to matching a typical super bowl. There's no need; in the modern era, it really isn't close. The Super Bowl always dominates the U.S. ratings. (The World Cup finale dominates it for international).

Link

Wow, there is a ton of stuff in Gonzalez's mailbag today.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 08:06 AM) That's laughable. The Super Bowl is broadcast in like 300 countries. The Super Bowl doesn't really get strong ratings overseas though. The networks love quoting that "1 billion people are watching" number because it sounds good, but it's an outright lie, most people overseas who receive the game aren't watching. American Football just isn't that big outside of with Americans.

Quit making me think of yours.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2011 -> 11:22 PM) You'd give your first born to find a real Republican to link this story to. Until then, close enough will do. Considering I posted that because I thought "oh, the guy seems like he had the whole 9/11 truther string going too" and even deliberately avoided quoting the BS parts of the article where the author tries to do the Republican connection...and you immediately rose up in defense of your party, I guess the only conclusion is that you think any attacks on 9/11 truthers are attacks on all Republicans. Seriously, I didn't put anything partisan in that post. I thought it was an interesting new nugget.

Don't forget though, he plays in Oakland, which is going to pound those numbers downwards. B-R says that the MLB average was 7.5% last year, so Gio's isn't bad at all, and there's plenty of downwards room; Dallas Braden's numbers the last 2 years have been 4.9%.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2011 -> 08:42 PM) I know I am late, but Ha-ha New England. They really put their feet in their mouths.

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Jan 16, 2011 -> 07:12 PM) Pats running low on time. Need to score semi-soon. This 4th quarter has reminded me of Philly in the 2004 Super Bowl against the Pats. Needing to score quickly, taking their sweet time.

The Pats are taking forever on this drive.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 16, 2011 -> 06:45 PM) How would Sunday's NFC Championship game been different if Lovie hadn't called the time out that stalled the Bears' drive in the loss to GB in week 17? It's like The Butterfly Effect. You're suggesting that Ashton Kutcher would not have a terrible movie coming out the day before the NFC Championship? Weird.

In case this didn't get enough play for y'all... Of course, the only reason why this level of arctic drilling is even possible is that the Arctic itself is rapidly melting.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2011 -> 06:07 PM) I don't think the Steelers are that far behind. I would say that's a tough matchup, but at this stage there shouldn't be an easy matchup left. The reason why I say the Pats are such an awful matchup for the Bears is that the Bears' D is predicated on giving teams the short passing game, but making deep passes impossible, making run after the catch difficult, making running the ball difficult, and forcing a turnover or a bunch of punts because you can't keep competing short passes. The Patriots offense is predicated on killing you with the short passing game. If you can't slow that down for the Pats, they will destroy you. The Jets are having success today because their CB's are denying Welker and Branch the ball in the short passing game on the corners and because they're splitting up their safeties, with only one man deep but the other man shallow covering the area over the middle. That's the exact opposite of what the Bears want to do. The Steelers can run the ball and beat you up on defense...but they also rely on the deep passing game, esp. when Ben breaks tackles and the defense opens up. The Bears can win a game against that strategy. That doesn't mean they will, but they can.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 16, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) Would make the playoffs much more interesting if Jets hold on. I think the Bears or Pack could beat either NY or Pitt The Pack could certainly beat NE. They nearly beat them with Matt Flynn. The worst possible matchup for the Bears in the playoffs is still the Patriots, so anything that gets rid of them dramatically improves the Bears' chances.