Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

soooo anyone else have a passing TD by a WR? kinda awesome lol

Been watching NFL gifs...

Can't stop watching this:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Meh.... It's all a conspiracy to make sure a team from the NFC will be "gauranteed" to choke against Peyton Manning in the Superbowl.

I think it's why Dallas is actually doing halfway decent this season

Halfway decent?



8-8 is halfway decent.. Last year, they managed to go 8-8 while starting their #6 DT, #6DE, #6-8 LB and #5 Safety.. Oh.. and their offense was getting done without their #2 WR playing for most of the season due to constant hamstring issues.

Dallas is a good team right now.

There is no guarantee that Seattle even makes the playoffs this year. I say that because the #2 team in the NFC east and NFC North are currently at least 1.5 games ahead of them because Seattle has 2 conference losses already. And the remaining schedule for Seattle isn't exactly easy either. Cardinals and 49ers twice, KC, and Phili. Winning only 3 of those doesn't get you into the playoffs.

dereksatkinson wrote:


There is no guarantee that Seattle even makes the playoffs this year

I know this... There's also no gaurantee that Dallas won't completely melt down and go 8-8 or worse. Or they could win out and lose the first game of the playoffs. I know that, at 3-3 Seattle's road to the playoffs is a bit tougher at this point than Dallas' road, but I have confidence that the Hawks will get things in the right direction, because coming back/rebounding from bad games is what championship teams do.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I know this... There's also no gaurantee that Dallas won't completely melt down and go 8-8 or worse. Or they could win out and lose the first game of the playoffs. I know that, at 3-3 Seattle's road to the playoffs is a bit tougher at this point than Dallas' road, but I have confidence that the Hawks will get things in the right direction, because coming back/rebounding from bad games is what championship teams do.

Oh.. Dallas hasn't done anything yet. I just think you are being incredibly biased by saying that they are playing "halfway decent" when they have the best record in football. Especially after the way they beat Seattle after spotting them 17 points.

I didn't see a bounce back this past week. I saw an implosion.

Trading your most explosive offensive player midweek and having to coax your starting running back into even getting on the team bus because of it isn't something championship teams do.

As for calling yourself "Champions".. You were last year. You don't have the same team as last year.



Although the Cowboys and Rams already force fed you a couple pieces, you might want to have another.

dereksatkinson wrote:
[
As for calling yourself "Champions".. You were last year. You don't have the same team as last year.

Dude, They are the current, reigning champions... What I'm saying is that, in order to be a championship team, they will need to bounce back from adversity. Yes, I am biased. I'm a Seahawks fan, so naturally I'm going to see things a certain way. Such as, that fumble at the end of this last game that basically cost the Hawks' at a minimum, a chance for the game. In this same vein, Denver is looking a bit like a "Championship" team, because of the way they're playing, and how Peyton simply won't let them get too far down. It goes without saying that there's a good reason why it's so difficult to repeat as Super Bowl champs, and I ain't saying that "we're" there yet, but I am saying that I believe Seattle still has the pieces there to do it, and that they will eventually get there.

I'm also saying that, in all the years that I've seen Cowboys football, I KNOW it's a matter of time before Romo becomes the Romo that we all know.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'm also saying that, in all the years that I've seen Cowboys football, I KNOW it's a matter of time before Romo becomes the Romo that we all know.

Well... you obviously haven't been watching very long or have a short term memory. Manning and Elway were talked about in the same light until they had a team around them. Romo has been ridiculously good as a QB for the Dallas Cowboys. The teams he's been a part of though, were incredibly flawed so he was having to win games for them.

The best example was the Denver game last year. Over 500 yards passing.. 5 TDs.. Dallas scored on all but 3 possessions.. Denver scored on all but 2 possessions. Dallas loses by 3 after scoring 48 points. Romo is the goat because he throws one int. It's silly. It's completely mindless to say he "chokes" when he has the highest 4th quarter passer rating of any QB in NFL history. It's just blown up more because there are so many Cowboy haters out there.

Oh.. and this is how you should remember Romo..



This is how Cowboys fans remember Russell WIlson..

I am sorry...but I nevet consideted Harvin to be the "most explosive" player on our team this year.

He has 133 receiving yards through 6 games. He barely cracks the top 140 WR's and TE's and RB's.

Wilson is probably our mist explosive player.

And so far, I think the Cowboys are showing that they're the real deal this year. Could they collapse? Of course...just as any other team with a winning record.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I am sorry...but I nevet consideted Harvin to be the "most explosive" player on our team this year.

I disagree. A huge part of the Seattle offense was based around misdirection, especially with regard to the running game. The threat of Harvin being able to take it the distance made it so linebackers and safeties would have to account for where he was and would freeze guys. If the linebacker is worried about the edge, he's not as focused on attacking the middle where lynch is running.

As for Wilson being "explosive".. I don't think he's nearly as explosive as harvin. Not even close. You'd never be able to see Wilson on punt or kick off returns. He is able to run the ball and attack the edge but that is more about DE's and OLBs not staying disciplined with their outside contain and Wilson able to exploit that. Again.. Watch the Dallas game. Discipline teams don't let QBs scramble like that.

Getting chippy in here ;p. I love it.

The Seahawks are world champions till someone else is. The Cowboys success seems built on demarco Murray staying healthy. Both of their positions are tenuous at best atm.

I also don't think Cowboys fans should be calling anyone out till they get a playoff win ;p. Even if seeing ensis put in his place a little bit is funny

Still makes me want to throw up a little bit when I realize the Bengals passed on Russell Wilson for Andy Dalton....

dereksatkinson wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I am sorry...but I nevet consideted Harvin to be the "most explosive" player on our team this year.

I disagree. A huge part of the Seattle offense was based around misdirection, especially with regard to the running game. The threat of Harvin being able to take it the distance made it so linebackers and safeties would have to account for where he was and would freeze guys. If the linebacker is worried about the edge, he's not as focused on attacking the middle where lynch is running.

As for Wilson being "explosive".. I don't think he's nearly as explosive as harvin. Not even close. You'd never be able to see Wilson on punt or kick off returns. He is able to run the ball and attack the edge but that is more about DE's and OLBs not staying disciplined with their outside contain and Wilson able to exploit that. Again.. Watch the Dallas game. Discipline teams don't let QBs scramble like that.

Eh... Wilson put on a fething clinic against the Rams last weekend.

He's explosive enough.

I'm a big fan of his ever since I saw him shovel a pass to his reciever AND RAN DOWN FIELD TO LAY A MASSIVE BLOCK that allowed his guy to score.

The dude just competes.

Chancetragedy wrote:
Getting chippy in here ;p. I love it.

The Seahawks are world champions till someone else is. The Cowboys success seems built on demarco Murray staying healthy. Both of their positions are tenuous at best atm.

I also don't think Cowboys fans should be calling anyone out till they get a playoff win ;p. Even if seeing ensis put in his place a little bit is funny

This is a complete strawman argument..

I'm not saying the Cowboys are superbowl bound. Did someone else say that? Maybe I missed something.

I said they are playing better than "halfway decent" when they are 6-1. With only 3 games left against opponents with winning records, it's highly likely that Dallas will be in the playoffs.

Seattle on the other hand is 3-3 and has 5 games against teams with winning records and two games against .500 teams KC and Carolina.. Given how they are 3rd in their division and have the hardest schedule in their division to finish up the year, I think their odds are poor. Especially when you take into account the way #2 teams in the NFC east and north are playing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for playoff wins.. You know how many wins this Seattle Seahawks roster has won? Zero. It's not the same roster as last year just like how this isn't the same roster Dallas had in 1992-1995. If Seattle misses the playoffs, will all the teams that beat them get a trophy for beating the "defending world champions"? It's a meaningless title.

If you want to get into a history contest, Dallas had more conference championships than Seattle had playoff wins before last season. That has nothing to do with THIS season though.

whoa whoa whoa! no matter what side of the fence you are on, we can all agree that the cowboys have payed their dues over the past couple of seasons (decades?) and deserve the chance to finally earn that elusive first round playoff loss.

dereksatkinson wrote:


I disagree. A huge part of the Seattle offense was based around misdirection, especially with regard to the running game.

I disagree with this.... Also, name one team that doesn't at some level base their offense around misdirection?? EVERYONE creates plays in formations/personnel packages that are designed to force the defense to stop the play with "less than perfect" personnel on the field.

Personally, I think a "huge" part of the Seattle offense is based around Lynch's running, with play action passes coming in to play a bit later.


Also, in regards to Romo, "choking" isn't necessarily making bad plays, such as INTs or Fumbles, but rather, not making key passes, incompletes to keep drives alive, etc. And while he may have the best 4th quarter rating, he is statistically ranked 135th in all time playoff QBs. The ONLY QB below him on the list? Matt Ryan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_starting_quarterback_playoff_records

edit:

More Romo Playoff stats:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RomoTo00/gamelog/post/ Since, ya know, it's the playoffs that really matter, and the number of super bowl rings the player has. (i still hate on Brady, but do recognize that he's been in the optimal position to win)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Also, in regards to Romo, "choking" isn't necessarily making bad plays, such as INTs or Fumbles, but rather, not making key passes, incompletes to keep drives alive, etc. And while he may have the best 4th quarter rating, he is statistically ranked 135th in all time playoff QBs. The ONLY QB below him on the list? Matt Ryan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_starting_quarterback_playoff_records

Yes and Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino right? Dilfer has a ring, he must be better! And Eli is better than his brother too. Ignore the fact that the Giants only scored 21 points once during their superbowl run. It was clearly the qb.. not the defense.

This is a nonsensical argument. It's a team sport and the fact of the matter is that Romo has only been on teams good enough to make the playoffs 3 times in his career. Next you are going to tell me that Seattle got the super bowl because of their offense.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you want to argue that Russell Wilson is a better QB because his defense gave up 14, 15, 17 and 8 points in his wins?? In his loss, the defense gave up 30. The most yards Wilson had to throw during the seattle super bowl run was 215 and against NO Wilson threw for 103. Yeah.. that's elite QB skills there.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00/gamelog//

Now that WIlson is the focus of the offense, what exactly is Seattle's record? oh yes.. that's right.. 3-3

dereksatkinson wrote:


Yes and Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino right? Dilfer has a ring, he must be better!

No, because Marino suffered in Miami with no running game, and very poor defenses. Dilfer went with Tampa Bay, right? At the time, they were KNOWN for their defense (and not much else)

And Eli is better than his brother too. Ignore the fact that the Giants only scored 21 points once during their superbowl run. It was clearly the qb.. not the defense.

Well, it seems that, while he may look like a bumbling idiot, Eli has what it takes to beat "superior" teams in the biggest games

This is a nonsensical argument. It's a team sport and the fact of the matter is that Romo has only been on teams good enough to make the playoffs 3 times in his career.

Thanks, Obama!! ......Just kidding... I'd chalk this up to the seriously insane personnel moves of King Jerry. Dallas has had some terrible defenses, aside from DeMarcus Ware, and some horrible offensive lines over the years.

Next you are going to tell me that Seattle got the super bowl because of their offense.

Nope, I am VERY firmly in the camp of "Defense wins championships" To borrow a phrase from rugby: defense wins championships, the offense decides by how much (the actual phrase, for those interested is: Forwards win games, the backs decide by how much)

And last season, didn't Seattle lead the league in takeaways? I don't think they're anywhere close to the top this season, which, along with idiotic officiating, some poor bounces and the occasionally less than stellar offensive performance have led Seattle to a 3-3 record. Wasn't this past week the first week that DeMarco Murray DIDN'T fumble in the first quarter? I know that he was looking at some pretty bad records if that trend had continued, and that Dallas is lucky those fumbles haven't really hurt them more than they did.

I am going to say that for me, the most explosive players on any given team is going to start at the QB position, then RB, then WR.

If the QB isn't getting the ball out to the WR, then there is nothing for a WR to do.

A QB who is "on" will be making all the perfect throws, avoiding sacks, and even running to make the first.

A RB can carry the team by breaking tackles, running people over, and making game-changing runs.

A WR has to (mostly) rely on the QB to get them turn ball bfor re doing anything.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And last season, didn't Seattle lead the league in takeaways? I don't think they're anywhere close to the top this season, which, along with idiotic officiating, some poor bounces and the occasionally less than stellar offensive performance have led Seattle to a 3-3 record. Wasn't this past week the first week that DeMarco Murray DIDN'T fumble in the first quarter? I know that he was looking at some pretty bad records if that trend had continued, and that Dallas is lucky those fumbles haven't really hurt them more than they did.

You are proving my point. Seattle isn't the same team they were last year. WIthout a defense that's playing out of it's mind, you aren't seeing Seattle dominate opponents. Simply put, their offense isn't nearly as good as people are saying.

Your defense of Seattle seems to revolve around degrading the Cowboys (who beat Seattle while spotting them 17 points btw..) when no one is even trying to say that the Cowboys are the best team in football. Right now, they have the best record and have a very easy path to the playoffs because of their remaining schedule. They might not win their division. We wont really know until the Eagles start playing the people Dallas already played and then they finally meet on thanksgiving and then play a couple weeks after that again. I'm not projecting anything other than they are in the playoffs.


As for Murray's fumbles.. It's happened in 4 games and I believe each time they gave up points on it. So it has hurt them. Dallas fans are also very realistic about projecting anything that this team produces during the season into post season performances. There is absolutely no shortage of haters/doubters on the Cowboys. If anything, there is a shortage of people who think they even have the slightest chance to do anything in the playoffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
No, because Marino suffered in Miami with no running game, and very poor defenses. Dilfer went with Tampa Bay, right? At the time, they were KNOWN for their defense (and not much else).

Romo hasn't had a defense nor a running game to support him his entire career. Clearly it's his fault.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I am going to say that for me, the most explosive players on any given team is going to start at the QB position, then RB, then WR.

If the QB isn't getting the ball out to the WR, then there is nothing for a WR to do.

A QB who is "on" will be making all the perfect throws, avoiding sacks, and even running to make the first.

A RB can carry the team by breaking tackles, running people over, and making game-changing runs.

A WR has to (mostly) rely on the QB to get them turn ball bfor re doing anything.

Agreed, to an extent. There are, in NFL history some players that were on "terrible" teams that were fairly unstoppable. Guys like Barry Sanders. Guys like Warren Moon, Randall Cunningham and Dan Marino stand out at their positions on offense. Lawrence Taylor played on some pretty bland/terrible Giants teams in his time, as did Howie Long with the Raiders (they also played with some SB winning ones too). We can kind of see this in Minnesota right now, with the loss of AP. I think he really was kind of the "engine" of that offense.


Also, with TODAY'S NFL, I think that, we're in a level of even greater parity than even a few years ago. The term "any given Sunday" IMO, applies more and more every single year. Just look at the first 3 weeks of the season: the Saints lose all three games at the last second, or in OT by some chance/fluke plays; But all the "experts" proclaim that all three games were ones that the Saints "should" have won. Same thing with this past week, Seattle "should" have beat the Rams, but for many reasons, didn't.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I am going to say that for me, the most explosive players on any given team is going to start at the QB position, then RB, then WR.

We are comparing apples to oranges so that's where the confusion is..

I'm specifically talking about players that are able to stretch a defense. Guys like Emmitt Smith were not explosive. He could take over games and put his team on his back but he didn't stretch the field and wasn't a home run player.

Barry Sanders was an explosive player. Randy Moss was an explosive player. I don't think any QB is nearly as explosive as those guys were.

The Rams always play division foes tough. They had SF down 17-0 but just could not keep the momentm going.

Seattle is definitely a different team...I believe they were missing Chancellor, Unger and maybe their starting FB against both Dallas and St Louis.

And parity is certainly rampant!

 TheMeanDM wrote:


And parity is certainly rampant!

But, seeing Brady's face after the losses at the beginning of the season were priceless


Also, for us up here in the NW... any word on when/if we're going to try and get our noise record back?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Also, with TODAY'S NFL, I think that, we're in a level of even greater parity than even a few years ago. The term "any given Sunday" IMO, applies more and more every single year. Just look at the first 3 weeks of the season: the Saints lose all three games at the last second, or in OT by some chance/fluke plays; But all the "experts" proclaim that all three games were ones that the Saints "should" have won. Same thing with this past week, Seattle "should" have beat the Rams, but for many reasons, didn't.

LOL I love the fact you are using the Saints as an example..

You know who Rob Ryan used to be the defensive coordinator for?



Ryan's trademark was to give up 14+ point leads in the 4th quarter. He had 5 in 2011..


From 2011 http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4689302/what-went-wrong-blowing-fourth-quarter-leads

No. 3: Losing five fourth-quarter leads

It's amazing when you think about how this Cowboys season started -- a 27-24 loss to the New York Jets, and how it would set the tone for 2011. When the season was over, the Cowboys suffered eight total losses, but five came when they blew fourth-quarter leads.

In 2012.. Romo had 5 4th quarter comebacks and 3 consecutive ones to end the season.. With the worst defense in the league.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/nfl-myth-busting-tony-romo-and-the-dallas-cowboys-are-americas-chokers/23434/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Also, for us up here in the NW... any word on when/if we're going to try and get our noise record back?

Probably when they decide to turn on the sound system again...

What do you mean by "stretching the field"...?

Using their speed to blow by defenders?

Also... this week's dakka ffl should be interesting, as kronk and I are squaring off

this thread just got awesome again.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
What do you mean by "stretching the field"...?

Using their speed to blow by defenders?

Yes. Being able to score in a single play no matter where you are on the field. Moss and Sanders were great examples of that but there are many more. Sproles or Reggie Bush would fit that mold in today's NFL. not really guys you'd want to feed it to 20 times a game but you put them out there because defenses have to respect their speed. If they don't adjust or respect the speed of that player, they could give up 7 in a heart beat. Harvin was a HUGE part of the running game not because of what his production was, but rather the attention teams had to give them to prevent him from busting one. 3 TDs called back vs Washington... Go to the Cowboys site and look at how they adjusted their defense to make sure Harvin didn't beat them.

dereksatkinson wrote:

Yes. Being able to score in a single play no matter where you are on the field. Moss and Sanders were great examples of that but there are many more. Sproles or Reggie Bush would fit that mold in today's NFL.

Both Sproles and Bush depend on agility for their explosiveness, as neither is especially fast.

You know...its funny you define it that way.

Harvin was *not* the fastest guy on the field.
40 yard times =

Richardson 4.33
Lockette 4.34
Norwood 4.40
Harvin 4.41
Kearse 4.43
Baldwin 4.49

So according to those numbers...Harvin was the 3rd slowest WR on the team.

I guess its just a bit of experience on his part...oh...wait...he missed almost all of last season...

I look forward to seeing what they do with the two young speedsters now that they dint have to play behind Harvin.

I think that part of the reasin they felt the need to play him wqs because they paid him..way too much...but now have two faster guys to replace him.

My prediction: mediocre or even below average seasin for Harvin in NY.