week 5 "What we learned" post

[CarlSpackler]

Tampa Bay at Jets -- The Bucs proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they were the worst of the 4 undefeated teams going into this game last Sunday. It looks like Cadillac has worn down faster than I expected with injuries (I didn't expect him to seriously fade until the second half of the year). Mark Clayton was put on lockdown.

The score was actually closer than the game was, as the Jets had multiple miscues (botched return, missed field goal), and still won. From what I saw of Vinny's play on Sunday, the Jets are better off with him at qb, than they were with dirty Pennington at the beginning of the year. Look for value with the Jets in the near future, and I don't see any way this Tampa team is makes the playoffs, unless Mr. Miagi works his magic on Cadillac before every game.

Washington at Denver -- It was raining much of this game. I have no explantation, but Mark Brunell looks better every week. He threw for 300+ yards, and led the Skins the length of the field in the final minutes for a td and was an inch within tieing the game with a 2 pt conversion. Alot of this had to do with Champ Bailey missing the game, as you have to think there's no way Washington puts up 400+ yards if he's playing.

Except for special teams, Denver's overall performance was disappointing. Take away the 2 big td runs by Tatum Bell, and the Skins had Denver's offense on absolute lockdown. Plummer didn't even throw for 100 yards. Portis gained over 100 yards rushing against the Broncos' D. The Broncos were lucky to have a safety wiped out by the tuck rule, and were also the benificiary of one of the worst offensive pass interference calls you'll ever see, which wiped out a Patten td. Washington shot themselves in the foot by having a long field goal negated by a penalty, and another fg blocked. That's what decided the game.

And the stat of the day is that 3-1 Washington is -5 in turnovers this season, only forcing 2 turnovers all year. If the Skins start winning the turnover battle, they have a legitimate shot at winning the wide open NFC East.

[ QUOTE ]
and were also the benificiary of one of the worst offensive pass interference calls you'll ever see, which wiped out a Patten td

[/ QUOTE ]

Ohhhhhhhhhh you're making me mad, I almost like it! Dont bring this crap up if you're not going to bring up the even worse holding call the redskins got on 4th and 10 when they scored that last td. The game should have been over, the broncos should have not only won but covered the 6 points. That call was just stupid, it had no bearing on the play and wasnt even close to a hold. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[McGahee]

I'm with you on both games. The Jets +3.5 vs. Tampa I thought was a steal. It was another game where the team that made the most mistakes actually won. 3 turnovers and 2 missed FG's? Yikes.

The Skins I thought were the 2nd best team in the division before the season. I look at their defense, Portis, their injuries on the OL last year, I don't see why everyone thinks they're a fraud. The Giants may have better fantasy players, but their weaknesses on the OL and on defense I think will ultimately hurt them as much or more than the Redskins shakey passing game.

[McGahee]

Was I hearing things during that game, or did the announcer actually say: "I remember 'the drive' on this field right here". Really? When did the Broncos start playing their home games in Cleveland? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
What a moran.

[ QUOTE ]
Was I hearing things during that game, or did the announcer actually say: "I remember 'the drive' on this field right here". Really? When did the Broncos start playing their home games in Cleveland? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
What a moran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just shook my head at that [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[tolga]

here's what I learned this week:

sometimes it is best to rely on your instincts and ignore systems/trends, etc. I convinced myself to get behind SF at +16 because "that's way to many points to give to a home underdog". all the while, I was also thinking of a much deeper, statistical analysis: the niners are terrible, the cotls are more than solid.

after watching SF struggle to put up 3 points, I am promising myself that I will not ignore any future "sports intuition" or whatever you want to call it, no matter how obvious a play seems.

[NoChance]

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes it is best to rely on your instincts and ignore systems/trends, etc. I convinced myself to get behind SF at +16 because "that's way to many points to give to a home underdog". all the while, I was also thinking of a much deeper, statistical analysis: the niners are terrible, the cotls are more than solid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this but there were signs:
1. SF's QB was making his NFL debut (this historically is almost always a disaster)
2. SF was beat up badly with injuries in the secondary.
3. I still feel Indy is not quite on track offensively yet. They have not needed it yet because of the easy schedule.
4. SF only crossed the 50 yard line twice against a horrible Arizona team the week before.

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes it is best to rely on your instincts and ignore systems/trends, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I never learn that. No disrespect, but I don't think the 49ers +16 was bad because it was overanalyzed, and the Colts -16 good because it conforms with our "gut". NoChance makes a good point about the rookie QB, and that was the deciding factor in this one. But really, Barlow had a pretty good game, Manning was nothing special, and the whole 9er squad actually played pretty hard. All of which was forecast by those who liked the points. A few less throws into triple coverage - actually, anything other than an unmitigated disaster of a QB's debut - and the 9ers keep within two TDs. I don't feel the least bit remorseful about that bet.

One more thing:

[ QUOTE ]
I will not ignore any future "sports intuition" or whatever you want to call it, no matter how obvious a play seems.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ain't a very 2+2-like opinion, but I hope it works for you.

[jedinite]

[ QUOTE ]
A few less throws into triple coverage - actually, anything other than an unmitigated disaster of a QB's debut - and the 9ers keep within two TDs. I don't feel the least bit remorseful about that bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
No question.

For those looking for a little more on this topic, last week's BSP thread has a little more postgame analysis.

Yeah, I had read that, knew you had my back . . . [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]