NFL Week 4

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:19 pm

There was an unlikely start to the game. I watched the Raiders take the opening kickoff, and go smartly down the field, click, clack, moo, touchdown. 7-0. Looked like it might be their day. I turned the channel. When I checked back after a little while, they were losing 24-7.

Post by **brian** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:22 pm

So, what in the world is the rationale with benching Manuel? I realize he hasn't set the world on fire, but how can you bench your second-year first-round draft pick QB unless you really think he has no chance of progressing?

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:38 pm

The defensive alignment of three WRs on 2 DBs does not work for the defensive team, at least when the defensive team is Syracuse. The outermost blitzer who would recover to the outside will lack the foot speed to recover on a WR screen off a one-step drop.

Of course, the "Syracuse" qualifier will not apply to NFL talent.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:48 pm

Tom 1860 wrote:
BSF21 wrote:Anyone know what the result of this play actually was?
It was TD on a WR screen to Wallace with the two other WRs blocking the CB and the FS...

So who has a job for Coach BSF???

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:43 pm

brian wrote:So, what in the world is the rationale with benching Manuel? I realize he hasn't set the world on fire, but how can you bench your second-year first-round draft pick QB unless you really think he has no chance of progressing?

Personally, I think Manuel simply does not have what it takes. He is raw, which is understandable, but his instincts and his arm both suck. And clearly, the team feels the same way.

HOWEVER - my view (like all Bills' fans) is prejudiced by having seen Rob Johnson, JP Losman, Trent Edwards and Ryan Fitzpatrick. In every case, it was a matter of the team showing too much faith in what were at best mediocrities. Maybe a strong veteran coach would stick with him and help him to develop. But neither of those adjectives apply to Doug Marrone.

I understand that a move like this may ruin Manuel, and I would preach patience, except for the fact that in a mediocre division, this is the year that the team could contend for a playoff spot. And, there's a guy who just spent an ungodly amount of money for the team. GM and coaches know they have to win now or they'll be sending out their CVs very soon.

And don't forget, this team paid a huge price for Sammy Watkins, who seems really good, but unless he has arms that are about 8 feet long, he's not going to be able to catch the balls Manuel throws his way.

Doug Whaley is ultimately responsible for taking Manuel, and for making the crazy trade for Sammy Watkins. I will be stunned if he is in Buffalo next season. No one spends over a billion dollars only to have the team run by a moron.

cerrano · Post by **cerrano** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:27 pm

brian wrote:What's the other viable option in Philadelphia? The Sanchize? I hope you're joking.

i was joking. i'm sure there was a call to wip this morning claiming that the butt fumble was a designed play and sanchize should get a legitimate shot.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:22 pm

This sums up the Bills move very nicely.

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo ... falo-bills

Post by **brian** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:42 pm

Pruitt wrote:This sums up the Bills move very nicely.

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo ... falo-bills

I'm not going to pretend like I watch a lot of Bills games other than highlights, but balanced against the fact that you're probably permanently ruining Manuel's chances (small though they might have been) of one day being a successful NFL QB, I don't see how Kyle Orton is a significantly better answer. Ironically I'll probably end up eating those words in six days, but this is a guy who was benched for Tim Tebow!

(I get that this is a Hail Mary for Marrone to save his job and will grant that in that context I can see the logic, but if I were a Bills fan I can't see how I could manage to get too excited about the thought of Kyle Orton, starting quarterback.)

Let's take the coach and GM's job status out of the picture for a second. If they still had their first-rounder next year, gotta figure they probably ride Manuel out for at least a few more weeks, right?

EdRomero · Post by **EdRomero** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:49 pm

If job saving is a factor, I wonder if they're making the switch to justify the trade for Whatley. A more competent QB should help him look better and develop better.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:58 pm

Kyle Orton makes me think of the old Bill Walsh quote, where he damned Steve DeBerg with faint praise: "He plays just good enough to get you beat."

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:36 pm

Hey, the Patriots are playing Thing One and Thing Two

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:45 pm

Rex wrote:Hey, the Patriots are playing Thing One and Thing Two

Ha!

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:16 pm

The Pats seem confused by the "run" and the "pass" defensively.

EdRomero · Post by **EdRomero** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:44 pm

I'm not sure if they can successfully tie their shoes tonight.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 8:49 pm

Was hoping for an untimed down to test the limits of Andy Reid's clock management skills.

Post by **Shirley** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:01 pm

Pruitt wrote:
brian wrote:So, what in the world is the rationale with benching Manuel? I realize he hasn't set the world on fire, but how can you bench your second-year first-round draft pick QB unless you really think he has no chance of progressing?
Personally, I think Manuel simply does not have what it takes. He is raw, which is understandable, but his instincts and his arm both suck. And clearly, the team feels the same way.

If it makes you feel any better (it won't), Manuel was thoroughly mediocre throughout his Florida State career. He looks really talented, but just rarely played very well.

Watkins, on the other hand, is legit.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 9:20 pm

Nobody's making fun of Bruins bandwagon jumpers now.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:04 pm

brian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:This sums up the Bills move very nicely.

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo ... falo-bills
I'm not going to pretend like I watch a lot of Bills games other than highlights, but balanced against the fact that you're probably permanently ruining Manuel's chances (small though they might have been) of one day being a successful NFL QB, I don't see how Kyle Orton is a significantly better answer. Ironically I'll probably end up eating those words in six days, but this is a guy who was benched for Tim Tebow!

(I get that this is a Hail Mary for Marrone to save his job and will grant that in that context I can see the logic, but if I were a Bills fan I can't see how I could manage to get too excited about the thought of Kyle Orton, starting quarterback.)

Let's take the coach and GM's job status out of the picture for a second. If they still had their first-rounder next year, gotta figure they probably ride Manuel out for at least a few more weeks, right?

This is my reasoning for arguing for the Jets to continue with Geno. The Jets aren't going anywhere this year, and Vick ain't the future. Let Geno work shit out, gain experience and hopefully make a jump and learn to make better decisions.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:09 pm

QB CONTROVERSY!!!!!

EdRomero · Post by **EdRomero** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:14 pm

Sancarlos, remember when you kept defending Josh McDaniels even though I kept bashing him? Or maybe it was the other way around. I haven't seen a Patriots team this poorly coached on both sides of the ball since Dick MacPherson.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:15 pm

I think I will have enjoyed the overreactions from week one more than I will the overreactions from tonight.

However, I also think tonight's reaction will be muted given what's happening tomorrow. Which will feel insanely surreal.

Post by **brian** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:21 pm

Kinda glad the NFC North drew the AFC East this year, you guys.

Post by **Sabo** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:33 pm

Supposedly the Raiders have fired Dennis Allen for real this time.

EdRomero · Post by **EdRomero** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 10:39 pm

Sabo wrote:Supposedly the Raiders have fired Dennis Allen for real this time.

Do I still get Swamp credits for reporting it first?

They should go after McDaniels.

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:36 am

brian wrote:
howard wrote:The Iggs don't rate inclusion in you red box of Armageddon?
Fair point. I guess I tend to underrate their historical level of suckitude because they've been decent to very decent for most of the last 15 years, but you have a point. (In fact the four division winners in the NFC would have a combined 0 Super Bowl titles and only four appearances.)

By the way, let's not leave out the AFC. The four division winners in the AFC right now (Cincinnati, San Diego, Houston and Buffalo) also have 0 Super Bowl titles and have combined for 8 Super Bowl appearances (helped a bit by Buffalo's four straight of course.)

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:12 am

brian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:This sums up the Bills move very nicely.

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/buffalo ... falo-bills
I'm not going to pretend like I watch a lot of Bills games other than highlights, but balanced against the fact that you're probably permanently ruining Manuel's chances (small though they might have been) of one day being a successful NFL QB, I don't see how Kyle Orton is a significantly better answer. Ironically I'll probably end up eating those words in six days, but this is a guy who was benched for Tim Tebow!

(I get that this is a Hail Mary for Marrone to save his job and will grant that in that context I can see the logic, but if I were a Bills fan I can't see how I could manage to get too excited about the thought of Kyle Orton, starting quarterback.)

Let's take the coach and GM's job status out of the picture for a second. If they still had their first-rounder next year, gotta figure they probably ride Manuel out for at least a few more weeks, right?

As much as I don't think Manuel is a franchise QB, I realize that Orton is "much travelled" for a reason. And your last sentence forced me to confront the fact that Orton will more than likely be the Bills starter next year as well. Brutal. You are absolutely right - if the Bills had a first rounder, Manuel gets at least four more games.

I don't think fans of teams like the Packers, Saints, Steelers, Chargers etc. understand what it feels like to have twenty years pass since there was a QB under centre (Kelly) who could be considered above average. It's getting to the point where Flutie's great six game run in the last century is taking on mythic status and the memory of a statue wearing a Bledsoe shirt can almost bring a smile to my face.

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:02 am

M&M had a stat this morning that among QBs that have started four games this season, the four with the lowest completion % on passes over 10 yards are Brady, Manuel, Tannehill and Geno. That seemed a little cherry-picked, but those same guys are in bottom 5 in overall completion % among four game starters, too ("surpassed" only by Foles).

That stat was pulled out during a larger discussion on whether the Pats are D-U-N, just to make the point that no matter how bad NE is, the AFC East is worse and the Pats are probably going to win the division anyway.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:25 am

The ideal scenario is that the Chargers win the West, the Broncos come to New England for the divisional round, Peyton chokes, and Brady retires before they get shut out in Cincinnati.

The part about the Bengals going to the Super Bowl isn't really ideal, but I have very few other viable options.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:24 am

Ryan wrote:The ideal scenario is that the Chargers win the West, the Broncos come to New England for the divisional round, Peyton chokes, and Brady retires before they get shut out in Cincinnati.

The part about the Bengals going to the Super Bowl isn't really ideal, but I have very few other viable options.

Just make sure you put the 49ers in the Super Bowl against Cincinnati so when the Bengals lose its to the 49ers yet again and this time with Harbaugh face to rub salt in the gaping wound.

Post by **Shirley** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:23 am

So when's the last time the Patriots got their asses kicked like that? It has to have been a long time. Or was there one aberrant blowout in Buffalo one year? Still, it was kind of jarring to see them look so inept against a team that nobody considers elite.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:26 am

Shirley wrote:So when's the last time the Patriots got their asses kicked like that? It has to have been a long time. Or was there one aberrant blowout in Buffalo one year? Still, it was kind of jarring to see them look so inept against a team that nobody considers elite.

That was in 2003. My son had just started grade 2 and my daughter was in kindergarten.

He is now in university and she is in grade 10.

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:39 am

brian wrote:
brian wrote:
howard wrote:The Iggs don't rate inclusion in you red box of Armageddon?
Fair point. I guess I tend to underrate their historical level of suckitude because they've been decent to very decent for most of the last 15 years, but you have a point. (In fact the four division winners in the NFC would have a combined 0 Super Bowl titles and only four appearances.)
By the way, let's not leave out the AFC. The four division winners in the AFC right now (Cincinnati, San Diego, Houston and Buffalo) also have 0 Super Bowl titles and have combined for 8 Super Bowl appearances (helped a bit by Buffalo's four straight of course.)

Bringing up San Diego reminded me of that complete evisceration they took from Young, Rice, Watters, and Deion. You youngins don't remember the Super Bowl being a yearly beatdown of the NFC champ on some poor AFC bastards. This past one, and the Bucs over Raiders (seriously, they didn't even change their line calls from the year before), were a yearly occurence back in my days of first watching the Super Bowl.

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:31 am

brian wrote:The four division winners in the AFC right now (Cincinnati, San Diego, Houston and Buffalo) also have 0 Super Bowl titles and have combined for 8 Super Bowl appearances (helped a bit by Buffalo's four straight of course.)

Wait, I'm counting 7: Cincinnati '81 and '88, Buffalo '90-93, San Diego '94. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, it's just driving me nuts thinking I'm missing something.

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:45 am

Johnny Carwash wrote:
brian wrote:The four division winners in the AFC right now (Cincinnati, San Diego, Houston and Buffalo) also have 0 Super Bowl titles and have combined for 8 Super Bowl appearances (helped a bit by Buffalo's four straight of course.)
Wait, I'm counting 7: Cincinnati '81 and '88, Buffalo '90-93, San Diego '94. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, it's just driving me nuts thinking I'm missing something.

You're right. I think I thought San Diego made the Super Bowl twice, but it was just that beatdown against the Niners 25-ish years ago.

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:13 am

brian wrote:
Johnny Carwash wrote:
brian wrote:The four division winners in the AFC right now (Cincinnati, San Diego, Houston and Buffalo) also have 0 Super Bowl titles and have combined for 8 Super Bowl appearances (helped a bit by Buffalo's four straight of course.)
Wait, I'm counting 7: Cincinnati '81 and '88, Buffalo '90-93, San Diego '94. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, it's just driving me nuts thinking I'm missing something.
You're right. I think I thought San Diego made the Super Bowl twice, but it was just that beatdown against the Niners 25-ish years ago.

Twenty years, Asshole. No need to make me feel older than I need to be. That was the last Super Bowl before I could legally buy alcohol.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:57 am

EdRomero wrote:Sancarlos, remember when you kept defending Josh McDaniels even though I kept bashing him? Or maybe it was the other way around. I haven't seen a Patriots team this poorly coached on both sides of the ball since Dick MacPherson.

Ha ha. I never ever liked that smug little fuck. I hope Josh McDaniels gets fired. Again.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:45 pm

sancarlos wrote:I hope Josh McDaniels gets fired. Again.

Me too. Watching the design of the KC plays compared to the sad sameness of the Pats offense just reiterated the point that McDaniels is resting on past laurels. I don't know if it's smugness or the inability to comprehend that you do need to design different typoes of plays or teams will figure out how to stop them.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:46 pm

Oh, and they lost 45-17 to the Chargers on 2005.

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:03 pm

It's a combination of things, but it mostly just seems like the Pats got really old really quick. And where they are young they're not really especially very good. They'll probably win that division because even an old Brady is vastly better than the other QB options in the AFC East, but it's hard to believe they're going to do much in the playoffs.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:34 pm

brian wrote:It's a combination of things, but it mostly just seems like the Pats got really old really quick. And where they are young they're not really especially very good. They'll probably win that division because even an old Brady is vastly better than the other QB options in the AFC East, but it's hard to believe they're going to do much in the playoffs.

But they aren't really that old, they are the 11th youngest team in the NFL.

I think the main problem is the OL and the play calling. OL isn't allowing Brady to go past the first read or two in his progression and so he's throwing almost exclusively to Edelman or Gronk. To counter this teams usually run a different set of plays that include screens, slants, etc. Seems McDaniels almost refuses to change from the plays that he designed years ago and he expects them to still work.

Also I think that KC was going to win last night against whoever they played. That place was wild.