11/21/24
January 18, 2016
NFL Divisional Round Produces Predictable Results: The #1 and #2 seeds in both the NFC and AFC have advanced to the conference championships for the first time since the 2004-05 season. The NFC title game pits the Arizona Cardinals (the oldest team in the NFL) against the Carolina Panthers (the most recent expansion team that wasn't a replacement franchise) in each team's quest for its first Super Bowl victory after being in one apiece. On the AFC side, the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos will meet to see which first-ballot-HOF quarterback will go to Santa Clara.
Prior to the Burfict assaults many considered Pittsburgh the team to beat in the AFC. Would have been a great game with a reasonably healthy Brown and Ben.
Patriots typically scheme really well for playoff games. In previous match ups with Manning strategy has always been to force the run read and limit the damage Peyton inflicts and with much recent success. This time the Patriots biggest weakness (secondary) will benefit from the Broncos lack of stretch game unless Manning can turn the clock back a few years and hit a deep route or 2.
posted by cixelsyd at 06:10 PM on January 18, 2016
Note to the Broncos: if you get to the Super Bowl, you will be the home team. You get to pick the uniforms you wear. Pick your road white set. Avoid the orange jerseys at all cost. It just hasn't gone well in orange, dating back to your first Super Bowl against Dallas.
The Broncos can't use their alternate dark blue home uniforms because alternate kits aren't allowed in the playoffs. So said Paul Lukas the Uni Watch guru when I asked him about it 2 years ago, as the Broncos were heading off to the Super Bowl to face the Seahawks. The blue should be designated as Denver's main set and the orange should be the alternate set.
If the Broncos were to face the Panthers in the title game, that would be another reason for Denver to choose their road whites, as Carolina usually prefers to wear white.
posted by beaverboard at 07:44 PM on January 18, 2016
Expected outcome or not, most of the games were entertaining for neutrals. Fresh face from the NFC versus HoF-lead from the AFC seems a decent storyline for SB50.
Note: I am not looking forward to that weekend since I expect Mountain View--the nearest train from SF stop--to be overrun with people in for the game. SFO is expecting 175,000 extra travelers per day that week and many will pass through this city at some point.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:25 AM on January 19, 2016
the Burfict assaults
Plural? Was there something dirty about the tackle that hurt Roethlisberger? Yeesh, get a narrative started and all of a sudden the guy hasn't played a proper down in his career.
posted by tahoemoj at 10:59 AM on January 19, 2016
Was there something dirty about the tackle that hurt Roethlisberger?
He rode him down pretty hard. There was some in-game discussion by the commentators about whether it was against the QB-protection rules, but it was definitely more than was warranted.
posted by Etrigan at 11:43 AM on January 19, 2016
it was definitely more than was warranted.
I completely disagree with that. That was nothing but a concerted effort to get a player, with the football, to the ground. Roethlisberger is a 250+ pound man who is very well known for his ability to escape would-be tacklers and extend plays. I'm not sure that Burfict could have done anything less than he did to get him to the ground. And what if he lets up and Roethlisberger escapes? Ben put his arm out to break his fall, and it resulted in a shoulder injury.
There was some in-game discussion by the commentators about whether it was against the QB-protection rules
I don't remember that discussion at all. The play wasn't flagged. Nor do I remember any mention of the league reviewing the play post-game. And most importantly, based on the fact that the Steelers players themselves whine and cry over every borderline hit, and did not say one word about that sack, I think they agree that it was a clean tackle. To the extent that there may have been discussion among announcers that I don't remember, see my previous post about what happens when a narrative gets started.
posted by tahoemoj at 12:15 PM on January 19, 2016
I don't necessarily agree with the thesis statement of this article (and, to be fair, neither does Roethlisberger), but there was a lot going on in and immediately after that tackle that didn't need to happen.
I personally cheered in my living room when Roethlisberger was taken out of the game. I dislike him more than 99 percent of NFL players as a human being, or facsimile thereof. And I still think that tackle can fairly be described as an assault.
posted by Etrigan at 01:12 PM on January 19, 2016
Rules are applied "selectively" to differently QBs in the NFL - Ben, Wilson, Cam Newton, Kaepernick (?does he still play in the NFL) to name a few are players who are treated like any other position on the field probably because they are tough enough to both endure and occasionally deliver physical punishment.
If that hit was on Brady or Brees guaranteed Burfict gets 15 yards and possibly tossed from the game simply because of who they are.
Regardless it's hard to argue with the video evidence Etrigan presents above.
posted by cixelsyd at 04:09 PM on January 19, 2016
it's hard to argue with the video evidence Etrigan presents above
Roethlisberger did.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:24 PM on January 19, 2016
Tony Romo has been sacked twice exactly like Burfict tackled Roethlisberger. His shoulder was driven into the ground, the weight of the sacker bearing down on him.
Both of them knocked Romo out multiple games with a shoulder injury. Neither one drew a flag.
Given that, I would call Burfict's hit a legal, hard-hitting play. He didn't choose for Roethisberger to hit shoulder first. A sacker who doesn't hit a quarterback late is allowed to finish the tackle down to the ground.
posted by rcade at 08:31 PM on January 19, 2016
Roethlisberger did.
I wouldn't expect him to. Ben and the Steelers just never get beat in street fight type contests. Harder he gets hit the better he is.
I don't have a huge issue with that hit.
The hit on Brown was brutal. Took an MVP candidate out of the playoffs, and also wasted what may be Cincy's only decent playoff opportunity in the past 20 years and for many years to come.
Worse yet took 2 solid teams out of contention for the AFC title.
posted by cixelsyd at 08:42 PM on January 19, 2016
Tony Romo has been sacked twice exactly like Burfict tackled Roethlisberger
Interesting you bring that up. I was looking at some stats on roughing the passer penalties as a basis for my comments (opinions) and found that Romo can be grouped in with Ben, Newton et all for least supporting calls. Style wise he is similar to Brady, Brees yet he doesn't seem to get the same type of protection from the officials.
Perhaps he's just crafty enough to put himself into dangerous situations that his body type cannot tolerate.
posted by cixelsyd at 08:54 PM on January 19, 2016
Romo's bones are made of papier-mache. He makes them himself as he recuperates.
posted by rcade at 09:14 AM on January 20, 2016
The hit on Brown was brutal. Took an MVP candidate out of the playoffs, and also wasted what may be Cincy's only decent playoff opportunity in the past 20 years and for many years to come...Worse yet took 2 solid teams out of contention for the AFC title.
And for that, you get an Amen, brother.
posted by tahoemoj at 10:54 AM on January 20, 2016
I've seen a couple articles now stating that the math likes going for two at the end of regulation in the Green Bay/Arizona game. This is troubling to me as I am usually advocating going for two and going for it on fourth downs but in this situation I agreed with McCarthy. My reasoning was that if OT is considered a 50/50 proposition you have the same odds whether you go for one (.943 extra point odds multiplied by .500 overtime odds) or two (.472 two point odds). So, the entire decision rests on whether you have a better chance in OT than the other team at that given moment. Carson Palmer was playing pretty poorly at the time and I thought the Cardinals were catching a lot of breaks so I thought it unlikely they would be able to move the ball and thusly the Packers had a better than 50/50 shot if it went to OT so I was perfectly ok with McCarthy's decision.
This is probably the last time I defend McCarthy as he usually is too conservative but this time I think you can make a case for it.
Strategy aside, as a fan, and in retrospect, going for two there would have been great. The way it turned out was entirely unsatisfying. You see the miracle, he walks on water, but then the boat sinks on the way back in to shore. What's the point?
posted by tron7 at 05:41 PM on January 20, 2016
Waiting for Eddie Lacy to comment on McCarthy's coaching weight.
posted by beaverboard at 07:43 PM on January 20, 2016
I'm glad New England has to go through Denver to get to the Super Bowl. I didn't feel like Pittsburgh would be enough of a challenge for them as a visiting team.
But I wonder whether Denver will be a challenge. The Broncos weren't much of a worldbeater against a depleted Steelers team.