ROUND 2: Dirty Birds Lead-Up

LUKE23 · Post #221 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:20 pm

I saw some Vegas odds thing that just rated each of the favorites chances to win (don't know how they configure that). Falcons were at 54.5%, lowest of the favorites by far. Bears were 80%.

Newz · Post #222 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:23 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I saw some Vegas odds thing that just rated each of the favorites chances to win (don't know how they configure that). Falcons were at 54.5%, lowest of the favorites by far. Bears were 80%.

What's the spread in that Bears game?

LUKE23 · Post #223 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:23 pm

Last I saw it was Bears -9.5.

Wilford Brimley · Post #224 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:26 pm

How come the media doesn't get on Ryan for not winning in the playoffs? He's 0-1 with like a 70 rating in that game.

Newz · Post #225 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:27 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Last I saw it was Bears -9.5.

Interesting.

I wonder what the weather is projected to be. If it's going to be cold/windy/snow then I might put some money down on the Seahawks is the line stays like that.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #226 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:28 pm

This may sound odd, but if we lose the Falcons Saturday, I'm going to cheer real hard for Chicago. I don't want the Falcons to get the Seahawks in the NFCC. My distaste for the Falcons is about even with the Bears just because of all the love for "Matty Ice" and I don't want Ryan to have a cakewalk NFCC to get to the Super Bowl.

bucks59 · Post #227 » by **bucks59** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:28 pm

I'm not sure if this was posted but it seems pertinent to the discussion some posters are having. I'm not sure what the rules are on posting Insider articles so I only posted the part about Rodgers.

Via ESPN.com and Football Outsiders
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs ... QuickReads

This weekend, Aaron Rodgers and LaDainian Tomlinson finally got the wins they needed to prove once and for all that they have the mettle and intestinal fortitude needed to play in the NFL playoffs, playing key roles in wins that pushed their respective teams toward the Super Bowl.

What a heap of garbage.

For each player, this weekend represented an outcome in which their performance was met with competence by their teammates and the breaks of a particularly important game for the first time. Although Rodgers and Tomlinson took different paths to get tagged with the "unclutch" labels stuck on them, neither deserves the adjective -- and neither proved that it was unfair Sunday.

...

And Rodgers may even have a worse rap. He's taken heat for being unclutch (along with Mike McCarthy) because of his 2-12 record in games decided by the arbitrary cutoff of four points or less. It's arbitrarily chosen because Rodgers is 6-3 in games decided by five to seven points. Last year, Rodgers' offense produced 45 points -- 24 more than it did Sunday -- but lost when the defense allowed 45 through the end of regulation. Rodgers admittedly overthrew an open Greg Jennings downfield at the beginning of overtime, but the sack and fumble that ended the game came on a play in which Rodgers was hit squarely, obviously and illegally on the helmet.

Is Rodgers really to blame for that loss?

What about the 16-13 defeat to the Redskins in which Mason Crosby hit the goalpost at the end of regulation? The 20-17 loss to the Falcons that saw Rodgers convert a critical fourth down for a touchdown before the defense allowed Matt Ryan to drive the length of the field for a field goal? Or the 2008 three-point loss to the Bears that saw a tiebreaking 38-yard Crosby kick blocked with 18 seconds left and the Bears score on the opening possession of overtime? If David Akers had been a better field goal kicker Sunday, would Rodgers have contributed less to his team's performance?

The truth is that applying concepts of "unclutch" or "choker" to talented players deserves more nuanced analysis. For Rodgers and Tomlinson, the bar will continue to rise. Their regular-season performances weren't "clutch" enough until they produced in a playoff game that their team also won. If the Packers and Jets lose in Round 2, the games from this weekend won't matter. Take a look at Peyton Manning, who was characterized as a choker until he won a Super Bowl. That calmed the waters for a year or two, but the chatter was back last year. Consider his AFC Championship Game, when Manning played the top-ranked Jets' pass defense. Had Manning lost and played poorly, it would have been perceived as a sign that he couldn't come through in a big game against a devastating defense. Instead, Manning had one of the greatest games of his life against the Jets, but because he then had a mediocre game against the Saints in the Super Bowl, that game against the Jets was no longer relevant.

Celebrate Rodgers and Tomlinson for being great players. They both are. But they didn't become any greater by virtue of winning this weekend.

Newz · Post #228 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:28 pm

Wilford Brimley wrote:How come the media doesn't get on Ryan for not winning in the playoffs? He's 0-1 with like a 70 rating in that game.

Because he's not on the verge of making it into the category with Brady, Manning, etc. like Rodgers is.

When a player is trying to become 'elite' or people start to recognize him as not just a very good player, but a great player (like they are doing with Rodgers), people are going to look for a way to put that player down and separate them from the already elite.

LUKE23 · Post #229 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:30 pm

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:This may sound odd, but if we lose the Falcons Saturday, I'm going to cheer real hard for Chicago. I don't want the Falcons to get the Seahawks in the NFCC. My distaste for the Falcons is about even with the Bears just because of all the love for "Matty Ice" and I don't want Ryan to have a cakewalk NFCC to get to the Super Bowl.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there by a mile. I will be cheering against the Bears in every game they play from here on out. Bears fans are already insufferable, and I know way too many of them.

Newz · Post #230 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:31 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:This may sound odd, but if we lose the Falcons Saturday, I'm going to cheer real hard for Chicago. I don't want the Falcons to get the Seahawks in the NFCC. My distaste for the Falcons is about even with the Bears just because of all the love for "Matty Ice" and I don't want Ryan to have a cakewalk NFCC to get to the Super Bowl.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there by a mile. I will be cheering against the Bears in every game they play from here on out. Bears fans are already insufferable, and I know way too many of them.

Yeah.

I cannot deal with obnoxious Chicago fans. I'd much rather hear the media gush over Matt Ryan than I would hearing about how great Jay **** Cutler and that stupid team are.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #231 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:32 pm

Great article, not sure why that's an insider article though. I feel like that could have just as easily been a NFCN Blog Post. I used think Insider articles were inside information like trade rumors.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #232 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:34 pm

Newz wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:
PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:This may sound odd, but if we lose the Falcons Saturday, I'm going to cheer real hard for Chicago. I don't want the Falcons to get the Seahawks in the NFCC. My distaste for the Falcons is about even with the Bears just because of all the love for "Matty Ice" and I don't want Ryan to have a cakewalk NFCC to get to the Super Bowl.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there by a mile. I will be cheering against the Bears in every game they play from here on out. Bears fans are already insufferable, and I know way too many of them.

Yeah.

I cannot deal with obnoxious Chicago fans. I'd much rather hear the media gush over Matt Ryan than I would hearing about how great Jay **** Cutler and that stupid team are.

I don't think the Bears will get any credit if they get the Super Bowl because of the path they'll have. Then they will get blown out against the AFC Champion. I know I'm in the minority but I have really grown to hate the Falcons ever since we played them earlier in the year. Hopefully we beat Atlanta so I won't have to worry about the legend of "Matty Ice" adding another chapter.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #233 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:41 pm

Cowherd is getting riled up about Aaron Rodgers again. Now he is completely disregarding the QB rating when deciding how good a QB is.

Wilford Brimley · Post #234 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:44 pm

Newz wrote:
Wilford Brimley wrote:How come the media doesn't get on Ryan for not winning in the playoffs? He's 0-1 with like a 70 rating in that game.

Because he's not on the verge of making it into the category with Brady, Manning, etc. like Rodgers is.

When a player is trying to become 'elite' or people start to recognize him as not just a very good player, but a great player (like they are doing with Rodgers), people are going to look for a way to put that player down and separate them from the already elite.

I would buy this argument if the media didn't go gaga over Ryan as is.

Wilford Brimley · Post #235 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:45 pm

This is really stupid, but I almost want to lose to ATL, because I don't want to lose to CHI in the NFCCG, and I can't take another SB loss.

Bernman · Post #236 » by **Bernman** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:46 pm

The primary objective of an offense in the NFL is to trick the opponent into thinking you're going to do the opposite of what the play actually is. That way your playmakers are proceeding to areas where they have a numbers advantage, or at least not disadvantage. A running game is necessary to achieve that objective, of course.

In the two games Starks was allowed the opportunity to play significantly, against San Fran and Philly, Rodgers' QB ratings were 135 and 123. Starks' run threat allowed the offense to set up play action where Rodgers could throw into non-congested territory as a result. Instead of allowing the LB's and safeties to stay back and front 4 to attack without deterrence.

Ryan has had the luxury of keeping the defense guessing all season with his bubble butted sidekick. And I haven't been watching them regularly but I can't imagine their receivers were worse than our drop prone ones.

If anything Ryan's benefited statistically, at least efficiency wise, from his supporting cast. I've liked Ryan since the draft, but Rodgers (who I liked as well in '05 BTW) is considerably better.

jakecronus8 · Post #237 » by **jakecronus8** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:47 pm

I'm going to have to disagree with you there by a mile. I will be cheering against the Bears in every game they play from here on out. Bears fans are already insufferable, and I know way too many of them.[/quote]

Yeah.

I cannot deal with obnoxious Chicago fans. I'd much rather hear the media gush over Matt Ryan than I would hearing about how great Jay **** Cutler and that stupid team are.[/quote]

I don't think the Bears will get any credit if they get the Super Bowl because of the path they'll have. Then they will get blown out against the AFC Champion. I know I'm in the minority but I have really grown to hate the Falcons ever since we played them earlier in the year. Hopefully we beat Atlanta so I won't have to worry about the legend of "Matty Ice" adding another chapter.[/quote]

Out of curiosity, what about Atlanta do you hate? They aren't arrogant, or a rival, or have a douchey coaching staff. If we lose I personally hope they take it all if they happen to beat Green Bay.

Newz · Post #238 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:47 pm

Wilford Brimley wrote:I would buy this argument if the media didn't go gaga over Ryan as is.

There is a reason to go 'gaga' over Ryan though. The guy is really good and he's the QB on the number one seeded team in the NFC.

The media goes more 'gaga' over Rodgers from everything I have heard, read and seen. They talk about the guy all of the time. Rodgers deserves it too, because he's putting up unreal numbers and playing at a historically great pace early in his career.

Newz · Post #239 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:48 pm

jakecronus8 wrote:Out of curiosity, what about Atlanta do you hate? They aren't arrogant, or a rival, or have a douchey coaching staff. If we lose I personally hope they take it all if they happen to beat Green Bay.

I'm also kind of blown away by the dislike of the Falcons. That team has never done anything to make me dislike them at all... Other than beat the Packers, which was annoying.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #240 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:57 pm

Newz wrote:
jakecronus8 wrote:Out of curiosity, what about Atlanta do you hate? They aren't arrogant, or a rival, or have a douchey coaching staff. If we lose I personally hope they take it all if they happen to beat Green Bay.

I'm also kind of blown away by the dislike of the Falcons. That team has never done anything to make me dislike them at all... Other than beat the Packers, which was annoying.

I think a lot of it stems from Cowherd's love for Ryan and hate for Rodgers. I am still on winter break so I've been watching/listening to a lot of ESPN the last couple of weeks. I would hate to see Ryan get to a Super Bowl before Rodgers because it would fuel the fire that Ryan is a better QB than Rodgers and that Ryan can win the big game and Rodgers can't. Also I don't think the Bears would have any shot in the Super Bowl, if I thought they did have a shot then I'd probably be cheering against them more.