Re: NFL 2018 Week 11
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:58 am
This is what happens when you don't initialize your variables.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
This is what happens when you don't initialize your variables.
Well, if you figure that pro football is only played 20 some weeks of the year (counting playoff), that a final score of 23-21 is statistically on the more common side (than, say, 19-8) and that there are only 50 yards that the injurry could have happened on, the odds are probably not as long as some people think. It's still eerie but not like lottery winning rare or anything.
It's funny, because we're in the offensive explosion across levels of football, and my two teams (University of Michigan and Chicago Bears) are having success by being defensive minded. Growing up a Bears fan, I've always loved defense (Did you know the '85 Bears defense is the best ever? A lot of my fellow Chicagoans have failed to make that well known.), and the best season of my Michigan fandom came in 1997 - the year Charles Woodson won the Heisman as a predominantly defense player. I still enjoy a great defensive game.
For my team bad defense frustrates me WAY more than bad offense. But I've adopted KC as a second team, and it's really fun watching Mahomes. I don't get nearly as mad about their bad defense as Texans bad defense.ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:52 amIt's funny, because we're in the offensive explosion across levels of football, and my two teams (University of Michigan and Chicago Bears) are having success by being defensive minded. Growing up a Bears fan, I've always loved defense (Did you know the '85 Bears defense is the best ever? A lot of my fellow Chicagoans have failed to make that well known.), and the best season of my Michigan fandom came in 1997 - the year Charles Woodson won the Heisman as a predominantly defense player. I still enjoy a great defensive game.
That said, if my teams were offensive juggernauts, I might change my tune.
Are you arguing that there was a significant amount of defense because there were 6 turnovers?Lorini wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:29 pm But both teams lost two fumbles by their QB and both teams scored on those fumbles. The first INT by KC in the fourth quarter was caused because the QB was hit. So even though we don't think of defense as offense, in this game it absolutely was. Without those defensive plays, the Rams don't win.
They barely used Guerley at all. He had his worst statistical game of the season.Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:13 pm There was good defensive line play for both teams, but their secondaries were abysmal. The Chiefs' DBs were so bad that the Rams barely even bothered to run the ball despite having a top 3 RB.
Yeah. There is more to defense than defensive backs. There were also five sacks by KC and 3 sacks by the Rams. As we all know when one part of the defense breaks down, the offense scores, but that still doesn't mean there was no defense.Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:13 pm There was good defensive line play for both teams, but their secondaries were abysmal. The Chiefs' DBs were so bad that the Rams barely even bothered to run the ball despite having a top 3 RB.
But one could say they've tweaked the rules so QB's don't get injured so much, which then increases the offense. Same with wide receivers, you can't hit them helmet to helmet, nor can you hit them when they are 'defenseless'. So those rules alone will create more offense. Are they made to increase offense? Maybe so, but they were clearly made to cut down on injuries, particularly serious ones.
Of course there is defense on every play. You never see two offenses on the field for the same play. The question is whether it is effective defense. The outcome of two teams scoring 50+ points states unequivocally that no effective defense was played in that game.Lorini wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:18 pmYeah. There is more to defense than defensive backs. There were also five sacks by KC and 3 sacks by the Rams. As we all know when one part of the defense breaks down, the offense scores, but that still doesn't mean there was no defense.Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:13 pm There was good defensive line play for both teams, but their secondaries were abysmal. The Chiefs' DBs were so bad that the Rams barely even bothered to run the ball despite having a top 3 RB.
I think defense is oversimplified too often, so thus my thoughts on the subject.
I still remember the last matchup like this - 1990, 10-1 49ers vs 10-1 Giants.gameoverman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:49 pm If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say the reason the owners have passed rules to the detriment of the league's defenses is so that games like this, 'exciting' games, are the result. This will rekindle fan interest and counter the negative PR effects of protesting and concussions, and whatever else.
Nearly three decades later, former 49ers inside linebacker Matt Millen, now 60, still gets fired up discussing that evening’s opponent.
“They were going to try to be the tough-guy Giants and bring that New York crap around,” Millen said. “It was like, give me a break. I grew up with this. I’ll freakin’ kill you.”
Said former 49ers tight end Brent Jones, pondering what would happen if safety Ronnie Lott’s performance from that night was transferred to a 2018 game: “I mean, Ronnie would be banned from the NFL for life.”
The sport is now different. But the differences between that 1990 slugfest and Monday night’s meeting between the same teams at Levi’s Stadium go beyond the NFL’s toned-down violence...
...The game included 461 yards, more punts (16) than points and no scoring in the final 31 minutes. Jerry Rice had one catch. Joe Montana had his lowest passing total (152 yards) for a full game in five years, but he did provide the lone touchdown on a 23-yard pass to John Taylor in the second quarter.
Late in the game, as the 49ers’ Barry Helton readied for his ninth kick, Michaels announced it would be the game’s 16th punt.
Cracked Dierdorf: “Oh, goody.”
But the participants had an immediate appreciation for a game that included five starters who are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, a Hall of Fame coach (New York’s Bill Parcells) and Giants defensive coordinator Bill Belichick, who has won an NFL-record five Super Bowls. The contest was clean — one turnover and eight penalties — but violent, even by that day’s standards.
A member of the 49ers’ stalled-out offense, tackle Bubba Paris, called it “the best football I’ve seen in my nine years in the National Football League.” Offered Giants defensive end Leonard Marshall: “It was the Super Bowl, in my mind.”
Do you play Fantasy Football? FF is a HUGE business and I bet that has more than a little something to do with it. 14-7 games don't excite the FF crowd, they want to see the stars put him huge numbers.gameoverman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:25 pm I started watching football when Super Bowls could end 14-7. I realize not everyone likes that, but I don't think basketball level scores make the game better.
I hope not but as they try to make the game safer for the players then it's going to be a lot harder to stop great offensive players. Maybe someday a good defensive coordinator will come up with better defensive schemes that will not depend so much on hard tackling but more on execution and being in the right place. Being in the right place of course requires the coordinator to call the correct plays. It seems to me a lot of times they don't call good defensive plays and the defense gets burned.gameoverman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:25 pm I realize there were big defensive plays in the KC/Rams game, but...
They came off passing plays. If you look at the stats you'll notice ALL fumbles lost came from the quarterbacks. I point to fumbles since of course interceptions can only happen on passing plays, which means interceptions don't really say much about the defensive level of play. If this football game had real defense being played does it make sense that no running back, no receiver, lost a fumble? Not only that, but each quarterback lost MULTIPLE fumbles!
In the NFL when something works lots of teams jump on the bandwagon. Remember how the "West Coast offense" became a thing? And the teams trying to copy the '85 Bears defense? I think this game is a vision of the future of the NFL.
I started watching football when Super Bowls could end 14-7. I realize not everyone likes that, but I don't think basketball level scores make the game better.
Are you sure the Bills lack of offensive production isn't coloring your view?RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:13 pm I missed the discussion on the Rams/Chiefs game. I don’t care how you want to characterize it, it was the most entertaining game I’ve ever seen. I love defensive battles too. But that game was ludicrously fun to watch.
It was whistled dead, and they didn't pursue it on the field. The announcers also went with it, as the Bears hurried up and made the following punt play.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:04 pm Wasn't that a fumble by Daniel right before the fatal pick-6? Was there some call I missed? Didn't have the benefit of sound.
Do I have to call New York for an explanation?
Yes. If was exciting because the offenses were remarkable. And the defenses scored three touchdowns as well, and generated 7 turnovers. Was it a perfect game? Of course not. But entertaining? Without question. It’s the kind of game the NFL has been dreaming about.Hrothgar wrote:Are you sure the Bills lack of offensive production isn't coloring your view?
I was down on it, but probably overly so. A game like that is fun to watch - now and again. If every game was (or even a majority of games were) like that, though, it wouldn't be as much fun. I was really overreacting a bit to the commentary (here and elsewhere) about how great of a game it was.RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:13 pm I missed the discussion on the Rams/Chiefs game. I don’t care how you want to characterize it, it was the most entertaining game I’ve ever seen. I love defensive battles too. But that game was ludicrously fun to watch.
I get where you are coming from and agree with you. It's why I used "entertaining" rather than "great".ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:40 am I was down on it, but probably overly so. A game like that is fun to watch - now and again. If every game was (or even a majority of games were) like that, though, it wouldn't be as much fun. I was really overreacting a bit to the commentary (here and elsewhere) about how great of a game it was.