That's gotta be one of the stupidest penalties I've ever seen. He had all the time in the world. The refs are staring right at him. And he just decks him. So incredibly stupid.I don't think I have ever seen that before. He just threw the punter to the ground way after he punted it. Monumentally stupid penalty.
Are you talking about Martellus Bennett? Who the Pats traded for?Exactly why didn't Bengals sign Bennett?
Well at that point when he basically has no clue who you are, you might as well go for it.Whenever I accidentally concuss a friend, I make sure to tap him on the head when he stands back up.
Those are called a StrahanYou don't see many sacks where the defender doesn't actually touch the QB.
How does any guy getting a paycheck to play football think that's a good idea?That's gotta be one of the stupidest penalties I've ever seen. He had all the time in the world. The refs are staring right at him. And he just decks him. So incredibly stupid.
No reason to hurry. It's good to slow down and enjoy the gameMiami just wants to go home, took forever on each play there.
The more things change, the more they stay the same; 16 years of dominance, lost out on the division title twice in that span, both on tiebreakers, once when Brady was out the entire year, first team in the history of the NFL to go 11-5 and miss the playoffs.If Seattle beats the Jets (very possible) and NE beats Buffalo (which should happen), then the AFC East standings would look like this after four weeks of the Patriots not having Tom Brady:
NWE 4-0 (2-0 in the division)
NYJ 1-3 (1-0 in the division)
Buf 1-3 (0-2 in the division)
Mia 1-3 (0-1 in the division)
And the division race would effectively be over. After four weeks. With no Tom Brady and basically no Gronk.
Unbelievable.
Yep, I'm not counting my chickens yet. But it would be incredible, all things considered, for those to be the standings after four weeks.The 1985 Broncos at 11-5 missed the playoffs.
And to the matter at hand, nothing is guaranteed.
I am not sure I am following you here. I get that Thursday games are on short rest, but I don't see how they are any different than games played any other day of the week.Both teams looked pretty shitty last night, but I don't think the Thursday night games tell us very much about the teams playing in them generally.
People say "Thursday games suck" a lot and I think there is some truth to it, but there are a lot of other factors. They usually aren't marquee teams or matchups -- I bet if you watched a lot of the lesser games on Sundays you'd think they were shitty too. It's also never defined what a "shitty" game is -- is it sloppy play? is it a one-sided game? is it one that's low-scoring and has two defenses performing well? Any of these things could be "shitty" to watch, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's due to the short rest. It's not clear to me what short rest (when theoretically the rest is equal on both sides) would do, exactly. I guess guys might just make more mistakes? Does this happen?I am not sure I am following you here. I get that Thursday games are on short rest, but I don't see how they are any different than games played any other day of the week.
I am not sure I am following you here. I get that Thursday games are on short rest, but I don't see how they are any different than games played any other day of the week.
Isnt this the absolute Best Case Scenerio?If Seattle beats the Jets (very possible) and NE beats Buffalo (which should happen), then the AFC East standings would look like this after four weeks of the Patriots not having Tom Brady:
NWE 4-0 (2-0 in the division)
NYJ 1-3 (1-0 in the division)
Buf 1-3 (0-2 in the division)
Mia 1-3 (0-1 in the division)
And the division race would effectively be over. After four weeks. With no Tom Brady and basically no Gronk.
Unbelievable.
Sure, I think the combination of guys getting their bodies ready to play again with three days of rest rather than six, plus a compressed timeframe to game plan lead to sloppy football on Thursdays. But it isn't anything scientific for sure, and the point that nobody would notice if this was one of a whole bunch of games being played on a Sunday is a good one.I get your points, that the teams playing the games can be shitty. But I interpreted RW's post to mean that the teams were playing shitty because it was a Thursday night game.
Sloppy play should lead to more unpredictable results, which means more upsets. So if Thursday games are more unpredictable, favorites should be laying a point or two less than they would if the game were played on Sunday. I'm not sure you can prove or disprove this hypothesis, but you could probably gather some data that would be at least a little illuminating.Sure, I think the combination of guys getting their bodies ready to play again with three days of rest rather than six, plus a compressed timeframe to game plan lead to sloppy football on Thursdays. But it isn't anything scientific for sure, and the point that nobody would notice if this was one of a whole bunch of games being played on a Sunday is a good one.