Skip to main content

NFL Hot Topics (on the field)

Over the past 24 hours or so, I've heard a great deal of talk on ESPN about the following topics in the NFL world (besides Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, and Ray Rice) and thought I'd chime in, because I've had to shake my head a great deal at some of the ESPN talking heads.

1) "Was Seattle exposed?"

Uh, no... The defending Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks were not "exposed" due to a 30-21 road loss to the San Diego Chargers. The fact of the matter is, while Seattle has been nearly unbeatable at home the past 2+ years (16-1 to this point, 18-1 including the playoffs), they have been a good, but not great road team. Over that same time-frame, Seattle is 9-8 on the road (10-9 including the playoffs). So, no, in a road game where veterans Philip Rivers and Antonio Gates played about as close to perfection as a quarterback and tight end can, and still being in the game until close to the very end, does not mean Seattle was exposed - not by a long shot. Nice try, though.


2) "Was Chicago's victory more about them having the resilience to come back or more about San Francisco throwing the game away?"

While I heard Pardon The Interruption's Michael Wilbon, whom hails from Chicago, along with former Chicago Bears head coach Mike Ditka, adamantly declare the comeback was more about the Bears than the 49ers, they're sorely mistaken, obviously blinded by their bias. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick turned the ball over four times in the game - fumbling once as the 49ers were about to get into the red zone, negating at least three points for the team, and getting picked off three other times. While two of the Bears' drives were impressive, two of their three touchdown drives in the fourth quarter were largely aided by Kaepernick interceptions. Over the course of these two drives, the Bears gained just 45 yards on 5 plays, which took up 2 minutes and 16 seconds. If they hadn't scored at least 10 points in these two drives, it would have been seen as a grave disappointment. Also, San Francisco was penalized 16 times for 118 yards. Chicago gained only 216 yards on offense for the game. If one were to include the extra yardage the 49ers gave them, that total would be increased to 334 yards, which would still fall short of the 361 yards the 49ers gained on offense. San Francisco was 7-13 on 3rd down, while the Bears were only 3 for 9. Chicago averaged just 4.9 yards per pass attempt, gained just 46 yards on the ground, and held the ball for only 26 minutes and 9 seconds. To put it simply, San Francisco dominated the game and should have won quite handily, but gave the game away via penalties and turnovers.


3) "Did Indianapolis get robbed by bad calls against Philadelphia on Monday night?"

Yes, to a certain extent. While I could have understood the horse-collar call on LeSean McCoy, there really was no excuse to not have called the Eagles with at least illegal contact, if not pass interference, on the critical 4th quarter interception, which set the Eagles up to tie the game at 27 a piece. As that was 3rd down, the Colts were up 7 late in the game, and the ever so reliable Adam Vinatieri would likely have put them up 10 with a field goal, there's a very good chance that field goal would have been too much for even the quick-strike Eagles to overcome. However, Indianapolis still had a chance at the end of the game, with things all tied up, to win the contest by driving the ball downfield and setting up a field goal. So, while I didn't care for the play-calling by the Colts down the stretch and give Andrew Luck credit for not blaming the refs for his team's defeat, I'd be hard-pressed to not say I think the uncalled illegal contact/pass interference penalty in the 4th quarter was a huge factor in the loss.


4) "Who's the most surprising 2-0 team?"

The two obvious choices are either Buffalo or Houston. Buffalo finished last year at 6-10 and in last place in the AFC East, while Houston was rewarded the #1 draft pick for finishing a league worst 2-14. However, Houston was a playoff team not too long ago and Buffalo hasn't made the playoffs since 1999. While I could understand either argument, I'll give the slight edge to Buffalo due to the level of competition both teams have played to this point. Houston, who started last year 2-0 before losing their final 14 games, have beaten Washington and Oakland by the combined score of 47-20 (average of 23.5 - 10.0 = +13.5). Last year, Washington and Oakland combined to go 7-25 (.219), both finished last in their respective divisions, and are a combined 1-3 (.250) to start this season. Buffalo, meanwhile, has defeated Chicago and Miami by the combined score of 52-30 (average of 26.0 - 15.0 = +11.0). These two teams went an even 16-16 (.500) a year ago, were in the Wild Card discussion until the final week, and are a combined 2-2 (.500) to start this season.


5) "Who's the most surprising 0-2 team?"

The two most common choices here are Indianapolis and New Orleans, but the only reasonable choice, in my opinion, is New Orleans. Both the Colts and Saints finished last year at 11-5 and were playoff bound. To start this season, Indianapolis has had to face Denver and Philadelphia, two teams whom won their respective divisions a year ago, and combining to go 23-9 (.719) in the 2013 season. In other words, Indy has arguably had the toughest two-game stretch of any team in the NFL to start this season. While the 0-2 start may be disappointing to many Colts fans, it's not incredibly surprising given their opponents. New Orleans, on the other hand, has squared off against Atlanta and Cleveland, whom went a combined 8-24 (.250) last year. At least Indianapolis has an excuse, where they can say, "Hey, we battled back against the defending AFC champs and made a game of it at the end, and lost at the very end against the defending NFC East champs." That's much more than the Saints can say for themselves. They fell to what's been the perennial doormat of the AFC North, as well as a team that tied for last place in the NFC South a year ago.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"