Football (american football to those across the pond!)

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by jojajihisc

All I know is if I was the one making the decision for the Colts I'd do what I have to to secure Luck (that part's easy) and owe as little to Manning as possible (maybe not so easy). He certainly was vital to that organization's success and this season underscores that fact but it's also a time to rebuild and that is best done with a young, very promising QB.

Yep, I agree with that in theory but I just wonder what kind of madness would break out in Indy if they dumped Manning, drafted Luck, and he bombed. I actually don't know as much about Luck as I should and I'm not at all saying he would, but not every 1st round QB has panned out. And he's really guaranteed a first season disaster even if he ends up a Hall of Famer like Aikman, who got to revel in a 1-15 rookie season. When you can pull off the sort of Favre-Rodgers transition and not need to completely rebuild, it's better, of course. Still, I figure that 28 million is the thing - "a million here, a million there, and it starts to add up to real money". So it'll probably play out just like you say.

[jojajihisc]

True, there's been plenty of 1st round QB's that haven't made it work. You don't have to tell me, I'm a Pac-12 guy who won't soon forget the names of Todd Marinovich, Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith. It's a risk you have to take though. What's the alternative? Stick it out with a 36 year old QB who may a few years of productivity left then you missed your chance at what was your best opportunity of securing a franchise QB? That might even be the optimistic scenario if that neck is never going to be right again. You're even deeper in the hole a few years later.

But yeah it'd be a bitch if he doesn't turn into a quarterback at least in the neighborhood of Manning's ability. And that isn't really fair but it's what he's got waiting. Good Luck?

[Winters_Sorrow]

Originally Posted by Culhwch

A move to the Jags would be interesting - staying inside the division. They don't have a terrible defense, and if healthy he could turn that offense around. Plus two games versus Andrew Luck. Big if on the health.

I was thinking about it some more and one other destination jumps out - Washington. They need a QB, it's the kind of splashy move Snyder likes to make, and it would pit the Mannings against each other twice a year. That'd be a story.

I agree that some club may very well take the risk and come in for Peyton Manning, and I think if the Colts let him go he probably would want to come back out & try to prove them wrong for doing so, but I do question his ability to do so with another team. It's not his health I'm querying by the way, it's how good a 'fit' he truly is on another team.

Peyton Manning has the right to call his own offensive plays in the huddle and is renowned for doing so successfully. That approach is allowed and encouraged in Indy but it would surely stick in the craw of the offensive coordinator of the Jags (or whoever) if he demanded that right in a fresh franchise, and that's without accepting that Manning wouldn't know the various strengths and weaknesses of his offensive line, receiving core and running back as he does so intimately with the Colts organisation, having been it's heart for so long. And if he doesn't call his own plays, as he's been used to doing for the last decade, then how well can he adjust to running someone else's playcalls?

I think of Brett Favre's success (or lack thereof) as an example of a veteran passer used to playing with a certain set of players in a certain way, having to readjust to a new organisation(s) in a very short timescale. You'd think vets would be able to do so but old dogs, new tricks comes to mind. They'd have more Luck (pun intended?) in transforming the offense to suit them but that's just as hard for everyone else to accept.

Originally Posted by jojajihisc

I see. Didn't read the article before I posted. All I know is if I was the one making the decision for the Colts I'd do what I have to to secure Luck (that part's easy) and owe as little to Manning as possible (maybe not so easy). He certainly was vital to that organization's success and this season underscores that fact but it's also a time to rebuild and that is best done with a young, very promising QB.

Originally Posted by J-Sun

Yep, I agree with that in theory but I just wonder what kind of madness would break out in Indy if they dumped Manning, drafted Luck, and he bombed. I actually don't know as much about Luck as I should and I'm not at all saying he would, but not every 1st round QB has panned out. And he's really guaranteed a first season disaster even if he ends up a Hall of Famer like Aikman, who got to revel in a 1-15 rookie season. When you can pull off the sort of Favre-Rodgers transition and not need to completely rebuild, it's better, of course. Still, I figure that 28 million is the thing - "a million here, a million there, and it starts to add up to real money". So it'll probably play out just like you say.

If Andrew Luck starts and goes 1-15 in his first season, pretty much everyone in that organisation will be looking for work come Summer 2013.
But it's a huge financial hit (even with revised rookie payouts) to accommodate both on the roster. I really can't see that happening without letting quite a few expensive free agents going to accommodate it and then you're depriving either starting QB of weapons to use and putting even more pressure on Peyton to shine.

Originally Posted by jojajihisc

True, there's been plenty of 1st round QB's that haven't made it work. You don't have to tell me, I'm a Pac-12 guy who won't soon forget the names of Todd Marinovich, Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith. It's a risk you have to take though. What's the alternative? Stick it out with a 36 year old QB who may a few years of productivity left then you missed your chance at what was your best opportunity of securing a franchise QB? That might even be the optimistic scenario if that neck is never going to be right again. You're even deeper in the hole a few years later.

But yeah it'd be a bitch if he doesn't turn into a quarterback at least in the neighborhood of Manning's ability. And that isn't really fair but it's what he's got waiting. Good Luck?

If I thought Peyton would come back, even at 90% of what he was, then I'd be tempted to stick with him and use the Luck draft place to fix glaring holes in the pass protection O-line & LB/Secondary core (running isn't a concern in a Peyton offense anyway) and hope that by doing so it'll be enough for a Playoff/SB push.

If not though, trade him (for less picks) and do what you can to support the new guy and calm down fan and player angst and hope you have a fairly decent (i.e. no playoffs but respectable) season to build on.

Keeping them both is the worst option as you're basically putting Peyton on a timer and having two highly paid players competing for the same position which'll divide fan opinion (Favre/Rodgers all over again).

EDIT: Interesting thought; What if they keep Peyton, draft Andrew Luck and he refuses to sign for them (ala Eli Manning for San Diego) as he wants a starting job?

[Parson]

My opinion and two "bucks" won't even get you a coffee at Starbucks (), but my opinion is that Manning will be a Colt next year and that the most likely scenario is that the Colts try to trade out of the #1 pick and get more pieces to put around Manning, waiting until later in this draft to pick up someone who might need a year or two of seasoning.

Basically my logic comes down to fan unrest. Sending Manning packing would be the same as committing institution suicide. For the sacking () of Manning to be acceptable he needs to play poorly for at least a year.

[Culhwch]

Of the QB-needy teams, the Browns I believe have two first rounders. Do they think about making a play for that first overall? The Colts need more than a little help, and if they hit on two first round quality talents it would go a long way to helping a healthy Manning. I can't see a trade down for anything less, unless it's a proven player that would help them immediately.

[Grimward]

Baltimore Ravens @ New England Patriots

New York Giants @ San Francisco Forty-Niners

Ravens have always been kind of a 2nd favorite for me, not so much because they're the closest (after the Skins) but because of the horrible that Irsay Sr. treated Baltimore when he moved the Colts. As for the Giants, I think their luck has run out.

And Cul...quiet with that Manning-to-Washington talk: The Danny will hear you!

[Winters_Sorrow]

Well that's an interesting development. I must confess I missed the NFL owner's statement about wanting to get the same team to return several years in a row, but it does make sense if you want to try and develop an overseas fanbase and don't have oodles of recent Superbowl appearances or shirt-selling star players to help you. The Rams fall nicely into that bracket of 'potentially good soon' and would be a better draw than the likes of the Jags or Cardinals.

The Rams are an interesting choice. Much as I hate to admit it, as they play in the same conference as the Niners, they are starting to make positive moves to improve themselves. Sam Bradford is a talented QB, Steven Jackson is a beast but their defence and average receivers let them down a bit. I still think Spagnuolo (good hire for Saints DC btw, Cul) would have got them there in the end, but going for the biggest 'free agent coach' in Jeff Fisher made a splash and will energise their fans again, and coupled with their low draft pick in a bear market for QBs, may enable them to really challenge next season.

Which makes it doubly important the Niners recent return to relevance isn't scuppered by complacency by the players and coaches next season. I doubt Jim Harbaugh would let that happen but hope someone reminds the players of that!

Anyway, back to topic. The Rams have committed to 3 Wembley games in a row, starting from this year against the Patriots. It's a kick in the teeth for their home fans - and will only strengthen the LA (maybe now London!??) rumours - but as a biased Niners fan I'd love the opportunity to see them live again (went to the Broncos/Niners match a few years back - loved it), though whether they'll allow in-division games to be exported I dunno. Historically it's always been an AFC/NFC clash to get as many fans interested as possible.

If the league's plan is to continue to build fan levels and NFL exposure in Europe and the rest of the World, this consistency in approach can only help them "grow" their game and perhaps cause the Rams to engage more directly with the UK fans during the offseason, rather than has been the case in the past where the league treats it as a mid-season SB. If the same core of players/coaches keep returning as the home team, will it make a difference? It'll be interesting to find out.

Anyway. I've waffled longer than I intended. What does everyone else think?

[J-Sun]

I just think it's deeply weird that there's a "UKPatriots" organization.

Well, and I sympathize with the upset Rams fans - though them getting upset at the idea of the Rams moving to L.A. is... well, I think they should just be happy they got the years they got and have sympathy in turn for the L.A. folks. And then demand the Cardinals move, too.

As far as the overall thing, I still don't know what the NFL is trying to accomplish. To sell merchandise? Well, that seems greedy. To expand the actual NFL overseas? Well, I'm against that - the NFL is plenty big and complicated enough now. To lay the groundwork for a true NFL Europe (or NFL Anglosphere or whatever) that isn't a sort of "minor leagues"? Well, that I'm completely in favor of that and if it helps, then great. (I'm not a football evangelist and if people don't want the NFL-style in their country, that's fine but, if they get exposed to it and do want it, they should be able to have it.)

[Grimward]

Does this go any deeper than Goodell would like the league's fan base to expand and found a ready catspaw in Kroenke when it came to having the same team play in London each year?

[Culhwch]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

(good hire for Saints DC btw, Cul)

Absolutely love this move by the Saints. Spagnuolo is a proven coordinator, and he should give us the consistency that has been lacking under Williams. I love what Williams did for us - can't argue with a Superbowl - but his blitz-happy defense is so inconsistent that it's frustrating. Especially when the blitzes aren't working, and the takeaways aren't flowing. A lot has been written both for and against his performance in the Niners game, but I still think he called the wrong plays on both of those last drives. Blitzing and leaving Davis man-on-man?

The question now becomes personnel, and it will interesting to see who stays and who goes. Spagnuolo likes to generate pressure from his d-line, and the Saints entire front seven is a weakness. No first rounder, either. Free agency will be interesting.

[Culhwch]

Quiet day in here for an NFL Sunday...

Well, commiserations, WS. Just an awful way to lose a game. I said it last week, after a win - that Niner's defense deserves a better offense. And two turnovers on special teams... it's hard to win a game like that, so to keep it so close was admirable. I don't know how you commit to Alex Smith long term, though. I know he got them this far, but I don't see him ever doing any better.

And we get a Giants-Pats rematch in the big one. Eli's chance to prove he deserves to be in the conversation with Brady, Brees, Rodgers and the his big brother. Brady's chance to prove he hasn't lost the magic touch he once had. Right now, I think I like New York's chances. Dome football, so no elements - the offense will be better for it, and that d-line will be able to get after Brady. Still, I'll think on it a little before I make my pick.

[J-Sun]

Well, I told everybody how to pick so sorry if you didn't listen to me. Though I couldn't blame you as I didn't listen to myself.

(I forgot that at least when my thinks and wants conflict, if I pick my think, I at least have a chance to win something despite the contradictory rooting impulses.)

I don't even care about being disappointed in the outcomes, though - it was the manner of the outcomes. Both games were fantastic (especially the NFC game, oddly, as I think the 49er defense outplayed even the Raven defense) until they were just incompetently blown in complete contradiction to all that came before. (Though I will grant that the 49ers had no business being in that game - did they ever convert a 3rd down? - Naturally, I agree with you Cul, re: the offense and Smith.)

Anyway - 90% of the championships were some of the best and most fun games of the season but I can't bring myself to care who wins the Super Bowl now. I must have blown myself out of the picking hunt but I figure the Patriots will win this one and, since I don't care, that's my pick.

[jojajihisc]

Some interesting individual performances (Vince Wilfork, Vernon Davis and Victor Cruz for the better and Billy Cundiff and Kyle Williams for the worse) but both games were pretty mediocre despite being close. The last six minutes of the NFC game seemed like there were about ten possessions. I'm pretty sure who I'll pick but no need to rush into anything right now.

[Winters_Sorrow]

Originally Posted by Culhwch

Well, commiserations, WS

Cheers Cul. Now I have some idea of how you felt last week losing a close one. Gutted doesn't seem to quite capture the feeling, does it?

It's the hope that kills you - the niners defence played fantastic all afternoon and on another day, would have been enough to win despite our offensive woes. I can't lay the blame all on Alex Smith though - the Giants did a superb job of collapsing the pocket all game and our wide receivers just weren't getting open quickly enough. But it was the special teams mistakes which destroyed us in the end, not the offense.

This may sound a little like sour grapes as well but just how bad has the officiating been in this post season? I can't remember a year like it, where every single set of umpires were this bad. I can think of key moments in every single game which they called wrong. I can't believe that the Giants O-Line didn't get called for holding more than once in the game - every time I was watching I could see it going on, especially the right guard whoever he was, who may as well have been wearing Sapouga's jersey the way his hands were glued to it on every down.

I'll hold my hands up and congratulate the Giants, though much like the Patroits I don't think they played well enough to win, truth be told.
Probably just as well for the TV crowd they got the game they wanted - Ravens/Niners would have been a defensive slugfest, this way they're guaranteed a decent score as both teams march up & down the field. If it finishes 38-35 again I'm sure the networks will be happy.

Ah well, it was good to have playoffs games at the 'Stick again anyway, even if I am concerned about the Rams & Hawks next year being more of a threat. Need to spend the offseason reminding our WRs how to run routes and catch the ball too - they've not had much practice this season!

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

I can't lay the blame all on Alex Smith though - the Giants did a superb job of collapsing the pocket all game and our wide receivers just weren't getting open quickly enough. But it was the special teams mistakes which destroyed us in the end, not the offense.

This is true. But with some more offense you might have been able to survive even that. But that was the critical hole - no backup kick returner. I'd kind of had the earlier crap blown out of my head but an article reminded me that that was the same guy who almost fell down diving for a punt he misjudged, though he caught it, and the same guy who called for a fair catch with no one within 30 yards before he decided to play chicken with a punt and then fumbling the next one. I mean, like I say, I hate to get down on any one player like that but that was a remarkably bad performance and I have to wonder if that doesn't ultimately go to the coach or somebody for not finding any hands guy to take his place.

(By the way, I asked in the earlier post if they ever converted a 3rd down and eventually looked up the box score and they did indeed: 1-13.)

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

This may sound a little like sour grapes as well but just how bad has the officiating been in this post season?

Yeah, I don't think it's sour grapes - I was rooting for the 49ers and all but not to the point where I'd be biased like that and I thought the officiating was pretty bad. I will give them points for correct replay decisions, AFAIR, but the live officiating was bad.

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

Probably just as well for the TV crowd they got the game they wanted - Ravens/Niners would have been a defensive slugfest, this way they're guaranteed a decent score as both teams march up & down the field. If it finishes 38-35 again I'm sure the networks will be happy.

Ah man... wouldn't that have been great? Form tackles, tackles for loss, sacks, forced fumbles, interceptions - a true war for territory where every inch counted. *sigh*

I don't know why people want such high-scoring games, especially with these new stupid kickoff rules. So a team scores. Commercials. Extra point. Commercials. Kickoff, kneeldown. Commercials. 15 minutes after each score they finally start to play again. Long bomb, touchdown. Commercials. Lather rinse repeat.

What kind of fun is that?