We only have a couple more TMQ's for this year, so I feel like I need to savor them while I still have them to mock. This week Gregg does some analysis of the Super Bowl and it is absolutely priceless. When I say priceless, I am attempting to indicate he had zero clue about what was going on during the game. His "analysis" on how the Steelers covered Larry Fitzgerald is priceless. Let's TMQ it.
The Super Bowl was fascinating from start to finish, and for the fourth quarter, both teams saved the best for last, reminding us of why we love sports.
No, the first half of this football game was borderline boring, at least up until James Harrison's 100 yard touchdown run, then it got boring in the 3rd quarter, and then it got exciting again in the fourth quarter.
(Note: I read the drivel that are the comments on Easterbrook's article and it seems that many of the people who comment are confused and don't think you can tackle someone if you have been/are out of bounds. I did not look up the rule but I am pretty sure you can tackle someone no matter if you have been out of bounds or not, you just can't be the first to touch the football.)
This season's signature play was a total disaster for Arizona, perhaps denying the desert team a Lombardi Trophy,
I am not a math major or anything but I would definitely say the 7 points James Harrison scored prevented the Cardinals from winning the game, since they lost by 4. Add in the fact the Cardinals were on the Steelers 2 yard line when the interception was thrown, and it made an even bigger difference than even Gregg thinks.
TMQ wrote a pregame column predicting, "Super Bowl XLIII will come down to how the Arizona defense performs against the Pittsburgh offense." Arizona had the lead with 2:24 remaining, the Steelers were stuck on their own 12-yard line; it came down to how the Arizona defense performed against the Pittsburgh offense, and the Pittsburgh offense carried the final two minutes.
The Pittsburgh offense against the Arizona defense was 50% of the game, so of course it was going to have an impact on the outcome. I am tired of arguing this.
Until Arizona's final first-half possession, the Steelers had blitzed only twice, "going against type," as elite teams often do in big games.
I don't have the game film in front of me, but I am going to call bullshit on this. I really, really doubt the Steelers rushed three guys all first half except for two plays. I will even say they never rushed only FOUR guys all first half except for two plays. I am pretty sure they brought more pressure than just four guys more than twice.
(In a 3-4, I consider anytime the defense sends a fourth guy at the QB as a blitz.)
The zone blitz is misnamed; announcers shout, "It's a blitz!" because six or seven gentlemen look like they're coming, but only four actually rush. The goal is to confuse blockers and to lure the quarterback into throwing a slant, every team's standard anti-blitz call. On a zone blitz, a linebacker or defensive end who looked like he was going to rush instead drops into the slant lane, hoping the quarterback won't realize he's there.
Gregg says the zone blitz is misnamed, he doesn't explain exactly why it is misnamed, then describes how a defensive end or linebacker drops into a zone instead of rushing the quarterback, thereby making it a zone blitz. Only in TMQ can you get such crappy analysis. Instead of saying the zone blitz is misnamed, wouldn't it be more accurate to say announcers call a defensive play a zone blitz when it may not be a zone blitz? I am being picky, I realize this.
Steelers defenders reacted beautifully, not standing around but setting up a six-blocker convoy along the sideline. Arizona's offensive linemen and quarterback Warner reacted beautifully, going all-out to chase Harrison and nearly stopping him.
The six blocker envoy also included an illegal block in the back that routinely draws a penalty flag on kickoff and punt returns. Don't let that ruin the story though.
Tim Hightower was well-blocked by Woodley at about midfield, then driven to the ground at the 30 in what might have been an uncalled block in the back. (Hightower was turning when he got hit, so TMQ would not have thrown the flag.)
According to the rule:
Contacting a non-runner in the back above the waist.
It doesn't seem like it matters if Hightower was turning around or not, as long as he got blocked in the back above the waist, which replays showed he did, it should have been a penalty.
I can only imagine how hard I would be arguing if I really gave a crap about the outcome of the game.
veteran Antrel Rolle stepped forward to get a better look.
Rolle is 26 years old and has played in the league 4 years now. Calling him a veteran is overstating it a little bit.
Hey, you young players out there, when the coach yells at you to step back from the sideline, there's a reason. If Rolle had stayed where he was supposed to, Arizona might be having a victory parade this week.
Gregg is really good at pointing out things that other people did not notice. One of the reasons people may not have noticed this play is because it was about Reason #57 the Cardinals did not win the Super Bowl. I would say the interception being thrown, the general laziness on the Cardinals in tackling James Harrison and the Steeler blocking on the play had more to do with the fact Arizona lost this game. Also, the entire second half had yet to be played, so I am sure the events during that time had an effect on the game.
he drew three holding penalties against Cardinals left tackle Mike Gandy. Television announcers tend to talk exclusively about sacks, but offensive holding penalties are every bit as good. All three holds on Gandy were drive-killers.
Not Mike "TMQ's All Unwanted Team" Gandy? There has to be another one. I know this Mike Gandy is not the same one who was 20th in sacks allowed this year among left offensive tackles because that seems pretty mediocre and there are zero mediocre players on the TMQ All Unwanted Team.
Sweet 'N' Sour Series: After pulling to within 20-14, Arizona reached first-and-10 on the Pittsburgh 26 with four minutes remaining, but then drew an offensive holding. Now it's third-and-20 on the Steelers' 36, and Arizona's coaches used a strange tactic. In trotted third-string blocking tight end Ben Patrick, who earlier caught a goal-line touchdown pass, but is among the slowest receivers in the NFL.
I thought TMQ liked it when teams passed the ball to an unexpected receiver in key situations. I could not find any proof of this but I vividly remember him complimenting the Cardinals earlier this year for throwing the ball to Patrick on the goal line at the end of a game.
The Cardinals lined up trips right with Patrick between Fitzgerald and Boldin;
I think the only offensive play Gregg Easterbrook knows is "Trips Right/Left."
Had Pittsburgh gone on to lose, people like me would have questioned why, while holding a 20-14 lead with time ticking down, possessing football's best defense and facing first down on their own 1 after the punt, the Steelers did not simply call three rushes to move the clock.
People like you, those who can't seem to think things through clearly, would wonder this because you are not capable of thinking things through clearly. There was 3:26 left in the fourth quarter, Arizona had all of their timeouts left. If the Steelers had run three straight running plays there would have ended up being about 2 minutes left in the game when the Cardinals got the ball back, assuming the Steelers don't get a first down and the Cardinals only call one timeout. If the Cardinals called two timeouts, there would have been even more time left over. Not only that, but the Steelers also have to punt out of their end zone to Steve Breaston and the Cardinals would probably end up with great field position and the ball with 2 minutes left in the game and two timeouts. That would have been a recipe for disaster for the Steelers.
Being aggressive was the Steelers best option because they did not want to be pinned in the end zone and if they had gotten a first down or two, they would have complete control of the game. People like Gregg should not question calls that turned out perfectly fine in the end.
Everyone hates the NFL overtime rule, which this playoff season spectacularly malfunctioned, allowing San Diego to defeat Indianapolis in the fifth period without the Colts ever touching the ball. Playoff games should not be decided by a coin flip!
I agree. I brought this up in October during an MLB All Star game post I put up, I am glad everyone else is finally catching up. The game should not be determined by a coin flip.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback kicked off the subject three weeks ago by proposing that in NFL overtime, a full fifth quarter be played but with field goals, punts and PAT kicks prohibited; only kickoffs following a touchdown or safety would be allowed. These rules would prevent the battle of punts that happens in overtimes, such as the Philadelphia-Cincinnati overtime this season;
So in attempting to make sure both teams get a possession in overtime, Gregg uses a game where both teams had multiple possessions as an example of why both teams should get a possession. I am speechless.
Say, in Gregg's scenario, Team A kicks off to Team B and Team B gets the ball at the 25 yard line and only get to the 50 yard line on four downs (because they can't punt), so then the other team has great field position but only gets to the 24 yard line before the drive stalls. Then Team A has bad field position again. What I am saying is that the team that receives the ball first in Gregg's overtime could have a disadvantage in field position if they can't get a first down, (so not getting a first down would hurt Team B more because they have to go further for a touchdown than Team A does) but regardless, stripping football of its basic rules is a dumb idea to fix overtime. Why not just have a Punt, Pass, and Catch competition? It is about as relevant as some of these ideas.
This is followed by moronic suggestions from Gregg's readers that fundamentally change how football is played in overtime, which is stupid.
Steve Fetter of Henderson, Nev., proposes, "When the captains go out to midfield at the end of a tied game, each team will place a bid on the yard line at which it is willing to begin the overtime session. The team willing to start furthest from its goal line begins with the ball at that spot on the field. So if Team A is willing to start at its own 20, and Team B is willing to start at its own 10, then Team B gets the ball at its 10 to start overtime. This takes pure chance out of the process, while adding the excitement of two sealed envelopes being opened by the referee and announced to the crowd in the stadium and the TV audience at home."
Would the sealed envelopes be brought to midfield in gold suitcases by Howie Mandel as well? I have a better idea, why don't we just turn overtime into a fucking circus and let the players choose an animal from a cage to ride/play on their team during overtime. Think about it, some teams will choose monkeys because they can throw the ball pretty well to the players, but others may choose elephants because they are harder to tackle, unless the other team chooses a pack of wild tigers, which would kill the elephant and manage to get the ball back. But then, how do you get the ball from the pack of wild tigers if you don't have a monkey to steal it from them? It's all about strategy...
Schwarzenegger is all too eager to lecture others about reducing their oil use, but he himself has no problem with being squired around in wasteful cars and won't even tell his own driver to shut off the engine when parked.
Computer-controlled engines of cars built since about 2000 do not require warm-up time, as they perform the same when they first light as they do after an hour of idling. Plus, so far as I could determine, there has never been an attack against a government official walking toward his or her car in the United States.
Yeah, there has never been an attack against a government official walking toward his car in the United States, unless you want to count President Ronald Reagan getting shot walking to his car in 1981, which paralyzed a Secret Service Agent who later helped institute a reform bill on gun control called the Brady Bill.
I mean if you want to include that, but I don't know why it would count. Who remembers that?
Super Bowl Analysis:
This is good...trust me, I would not let you down.
Through the first three quarters, the Steelers double-teamed Larry Fitzgerald, and the league's most dangerous receiver was taken out of the game. Often, strong safety Troy Polamalu jumped in front of Fitzgerald just before the snap and jammed him;
If there was ANYONE who reads this blog that saw Troy Polamalu jam Larry Fitzgerald at the line of scrimmage consistently in the Super Bowl, please tell me and I will apologize to Gregg for what I am about to type.
Not only is Gregg completely making up shit that happened in the game, this makes zero sense for a defense to do. Why the hell would the Steelers have a safety jam the receiver and leave absolutely nothing behind the safety? If Gregg saw Polamalu jamming Fitzgerald right before the snap where the hell did the cornerback go to? The corners were certainly not playing safety during the Super Bowl, I clearly remember Polamalu playing behind the corners. In Gregg's fucked up world, where the hell did the corner back go? Seriously, either Gregg is insane or making shit up.
If I am wrong about this, I will send an apology to Gregg but I know Polamalu was not jamming Larry Fitzgerald at the line of scrimmage.
a safety always shaded Fitzgerald's way.
So now in Gregg's magical fantasy world, a safety was also shading Fitzgerald's way as well. So the Steelers have given a cornerback, a safety (Polamalu) to jam Fitzgerald and a safety to shade Fitzgerald's way. You would think the Cardinals would have noticed at some point there was ONE cornerback to cover the entire other side of the field in the Steeler's base 3-4 package. Even in their nickel package that is two corners with no safety help on the other side of the field.
There is no way this actually happened in the Super Bowl, not only because I don't recall Polamalu jumping in front of Fitzgerald to jam him but it would also be defensive suicide to commit both of your safeties to one receiver. Whoever edits Gregg's TMQ needs to be fired. This is obviously something Gregg remembers falsely.
But Gregg is not done either...
Oddly, Arizona did not react to this tactic by having Kurt Warner look at Fitzgerald, then throw deep to the opposite side of the field.
This is not odd because the Steelers had 2 safeties two deep the entire game. That is why Warner could not go deep, not because Polamalu was jamming Fitzgerald or any other bizarre reason. I remember John Madden showing the two deep zone in the first half and I remember this because he accidentally drew a penis on the television screen.
Through the fourth quarter, Pittsburgh had either one safety, Ryan Clark, 25 yards deep, or Clark and Polamalu both 20 yards deep dividing the field into a two-deep zone.
I am pretty sure the Steelers did this the entire game and not just the fourth quarter. I am willing to make myself look like an asshole if I am wrong about this but Gregg's editors should have caught this horrible mistake. Seriously, this is not bad analysis, but actually just completely incorrect. Polamalu was never jamming anyone on the line of scrimmage.
The Steelers' defense is a collaborative effort that is about results, not personal stats -- and note that after his 100-yard touchdown, Harrison did not dance around the field pointing at himself.
Probably because he was tired from running 100 yards and avoiding professional athletes that were attempting to tackle him, not because he is too much of a team player.
Also on the final drive, Roethlisberger began pump-faking, which he hadn't earlier -- the 46-yard completion to Holmes was on a pump-fake off a zed-in route.
I don't want to be picky, but the solution to all offensive ills is not pump faking and going shotgun in typical running formations. Many times Roethlisberger did not have time to pump fake, he was so busy running away from Cardinal defenders.
Rookie corner Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie was matched up against Santonio Holmes most of the day, and as the fourth quarter wore on, clearly was outmatched. Rodgers-Cromartie was a small-school player, never in college knowing anything remotely like Super Bowl pressure.
Rodgers-Cromartie played pretty well all year, I don't know if him going to a small college had anything to do with Santonio Holmes playing well. Super Bowl pressure never affected Jerry Rice or any other small school player who played in the NFL, it is usually the skill of the other players that causes more problems for someone who went to a big or small college...and Santonio Holmes has skills.
The Cards have veteran megabucks defensive backs in Antrel Rolle and Adrian Wilson, why wasn't one of them switched onto Holmes?
Because those are safeties you dipshit. If the Cardinals had switched Rolle or Wilson to Santonio Holmes they would have had to find someone else to play safety or change up the defense to where there was no safety on certain plays or the corners were responsible for the safety's coverage responsibilities. Also, and I don't want to confuse Gregg too much, but cornerbacks are supposed to be matched up on receivers like Holmes, and safeties are supposed to be helping out with run support and shadowing receivers to prevent a deep ball, especially in the Steelers 3-4 defense. It's hard to help out on run support, make sure Heath Miller doesn't catch 12 passes and cover Santonio Holmes at the same time.
I am definitely not an expert on the NFL and how the defensive plays work, but I feel like I have a decent grasp on the responsibilities of each position. Someone needs to send Gregg a book that describes what each position on a football team is responsible for doing. Sure the Cardinals could have switched a safety to Holmes, but I really doubt Wilson/Rolle would have done any better on Holmes. There is a reason Rolle, who was originally drafted as a cornerback, was switched to safety and that reason is that he has more value as a safety.
In the end, Pittsburgh won outright, while Arizona benefited from several major calls or no-calls: three were two uncalled obvious holds by the Cardinals' offensive line on the Arizona fourth-quarter touchdown drives. (Two obvious offensive holds by Pittsburgh also were not called, one on a scoring drive.)
So both teams benefitted from non-calls or they did not make a difference? Is that what you are trying to type? Also, am I stupid or does "Three were two uncalled obvious holds by the Cardinals' offensive line..." not make any sense?
And did Harrison get the ball across the goal line at the end of the first half? Maybe, but if the league would simply chip the football as TMQ keeps asking, we'd be sure.
What if the end of the football that is not chipped goes across the goal line or if the side of the ball breaks the goal?
I don't know what NBC showed, but can report that at the stadium in Tampa, no controversial call or no-call was replayed on the JumboTron -- only plays about which there was no issue were replayed. It seemed pretty obvious the league was trying to prevent crowd booing, which would be heard by the international television audience.
As part of my continuing goal to try and teach Gregg about the basics of football, I will be glad to tell him that the NFL prohibits the home team from showing a controversial replay more than once on the JumboTron and so I would assume during the Super Bowl controversial calls were not allowed to be played on the JumboTron at all. If Gregg read Sports Illustrated he would have read an entire column about this three weeks ago.
Hidden Play of the Super Bowl:
A play that was incredibly important but no one remembers it.
Hidden plays are ones that stop or sustain drives, but never make highlight reels.
I like his definition better.
With Arizona leading 23-20, Pittsburgh faced third-and-6 on its 26 at the two minute warning. The Cardinals rushed five, and two Arizona rushers beat their men. Ben Roethlisberger stepped up between them, shook off a tackler and threw 13 yards to Santonio Holmes for the first down.
Ok, how was this a hidden play? This play ensured the Steelers would not have to either go for it on fourth down or punt and give the ball back to the Cardinals, who had the lead at this point deep into the fourth quarter. This will definitely make highlight reels of the final drive the Steelers had that won the Super Bowl, simply because it was a crucial third down conversion. I know I am being picky again, but I just can't stop.
But the final act of the 2008 NFL season remains: Tuesday Morning Quarterback's annual Bad Predictions Review. Here's a foretaste: Everyone was wrong about everything!
One more week of not enjoying TMQ. Let's savor it while we can.
13 comments:
How Gregg can completely screw up what the Steeler D was doing the entire game is mind blowing. A person would think that his brilliant 12 year old would have pointed out to his senile dad that the Steelers were playing a 2 Deep Zone the entire game.
He bitches about the Steelers not running the ball 3 straight times, did he see the time were they did run it and barely avoided the safety? Did he see that they completed the pass for the first down, but that there was a hold for a safety that negated it? If the hold isn't called/happens the Steelers cruise to a Super Bowl win on that complete pass.
Last thing. Gregg is the first and only person I've seen who has said that it was the Cardinals who benefitted from the officating. The first and only I'm going to assume that I do see. They even managed to get two calls against them overturned! they sure didn't benefit from calls going their way more then the Steelers did.
I lied, the other last thing. You are completely right Ben about how stupid his overtime system is. It does nothing but completely benefit the team that kicks off to start the overtime. Unless the receiving team can drive the ball to the other 25 yard line or so, they're at a distinct disadvantage. So much so that the other team has a better opportunity to score, a much better opportunity that involves them kicking off AGAIN if they score, pinning the team that gets the first kickoff back in their territory again. Gregg is an idiot.
I probably say this a lot, but I have no idea how ESPN can let his "analysis" go to the web site. The Cardinals would have hoped and prayed Polamalu was jamming Fitzgerald on the line of scrimmage giving no safety help. I really thought the Steelers were playing a 2 Deep Zone the entire game and if no one corrects me, I will assume it is correct. I don't even know how Gregg could even think he saw Polamalu jamming at the line.
I am starting to think he sees only what he wants to see. Willie Parker barely made it out of the end zone and I believe on first down the ball arguably should have been caught and then on third down the ball was caught. Running the ball three straight times was just asking for trouble.
I would probably be flipping out right now if the Panthers were involved in that game because its not that the Steelers got a lot of calls, it is just that many of the calls they received the benefit of were in key situations that helped determine the outcome of the game. I know referees are not perfect so I try to not bitch about how many calls one team gets but some of the calls in that game, like the Karlos Dansby roughing the passer call is hard for me to swallow.
Gregg's system is very dumb. It is completely stupid. It puts the team that receives the ball in a position where they have to gain yardage or the other team gets great field position. Sure Team B should have to be able to move the ball down the field but if they can't why should Team A get the ball on downs in great field position as a benefit? The more I read about overtime, the more I am convinced the current system is flawed but not the worst idea out there.
I read TMQ yesterday and had to sit on writing about Gregg's analysis for 12 hours, it was very hard for me to do. It's like he was watching a different game sometimes.
I did not look up the rule but I am pretty sure you can tackle someone no matter if you have been out of bounds or not, you just can't be the first to touch the football.
There is one other addendum to this. A player may not intentionally go out of bounds in order to avoid defenders/blockers, and if the player is forced out of bounds, he must make a genuine effort to reestablish himself in the field of play as quickly as possible. If he intentionally goes out of bounds to avoid blockers/defenders or does not attempt to reestablish himself in bounds, it is a personal foul.
The zone blitz is misnamed; announcers shout, "It's a blitz!" because six or seven gentlemen look like they're coming, but only four actually rush.
I can't believe I'm about to defend Easterbrook, but both you and FJM took issue with this statement. While there is not an official definition of blitzing, most often a blitz refers to sending more than 4 rushers. (In a 3-4, generally one of the LB's rush each play) The reason, as far as I see it, that he says the zone blitz is misnamed is because only 4 players still rush the QB, which makes it not a blitz. This may be the only good point he made in the entire article. Then again, he is Easterbrook, so he might have been spewing some other drivel and accidentally made himself look competent for a sentence.
Actually I figured it's called a zone blitz because it's players coming from positions that are not standard rushers. The blitz isn't about how many people come in a "zone blitz" but that it's a safety rushing with a lineman dropping back. Or a corner, or a whoever. The team is blitzing a player out of a zone package. messing up the blocking package. Since it's usually only the 4 lineman, or 3 lineman and one linebacker in standard defenses, the term zone blitz is accurate for a 4 person rush as long as one of the rushers is not from one of the usual rushing positions.
Of course the belief that a blitz should involve more then 4 rushers is also legimate since it's only football and not like we're dealing with math here. Just that I've always figured a "zone blitz" just meant that a lineman was dropping back into coverage while someone else rushed the QB, not that an extra rusher was involved, or at least not necessarily involved.
Since it's Gregg, I give him no benefit of the doubt, but always will for other commentators, and respect any rational thought on this subject.
Seriously though, considering this was one game, and a game we have to assume Gregg watched completely and with attention; how horrendous is his analysis? It's not that he has some "opinion" on something like zone blitz, but absolute FACTS that he's missing. The Steelers ran a 2 deep zone most of the game, which Gregg missed. Troy was NOT lining up against Fitz and jamming him the first 3 quarters. (Actually Madden adressed the fact that Fitz was being double covered because he was in the slot, so they moved him to wide out, and viola, single coverage that got him open) the Cardinal secondary was doing a pretty good job of covering Santonio and the other Steeler receivers, but as Ben was scrambling and scrambling (And I thought Ben played great, man can he dance in a 6 foot circle and throw while moving) defense breaks down, shit happens. Did Gregg see that it wasn't that Santonio got behind the Cards D on the big play, but that the coverman SLIPPED and FELL DOWN that allowed the play to agin the extra 30 yards? apparently not, because he advocates using Adrian Wilson to cover Santonio. Wilson is a good safety, but, um, Santonio woulda have handed him his lunch.
Thanks aptly named RuleBook, I googled that rule, and much like the block in the back rule I also googled, I did not find that much. In that case Larry Fitzgerald was probably not forced out of bounds, so it would have been a personal foul had he attempted to make a play.
As far as the zone blitz thing, I can accept that argument that you made. I can see how 4 people would not constitute a blitz. It sounds like he may actually have a point there...at least about the blitz part, so it may be a misnomer.
I guess I use it in the wrong context because I think of it when guys who don't normally blitz do blitz as well, like defensive lineman and such, but if 4 are coming at the QB then it may not be a blitz. Can we call it a zone rush then?
Martin, your point about Gregg's analysis of the game is exactly correct. I think I have said it 100 times now but Polamalu was never jamming Fitzgerald at the line of scrimmage or jumping in front of him either. I thought Adrian Wilson played pretty well but I don't think he could have covered Holmes and it is not really his job to do that as a safety.
I have new respect for Roethlisberger because he certainly can get away from rushers with great ease. That pass in the first half where he scrambled around and then found a tight end (Miller) was just crazy. He did the Manning scramble in the pocket from the Super Bowl last year about 3-4 times this game.
As far as the rules for tackling someone after you left the field, its allowed. You can tackle anyone as long as you were on the field when the play started, and not some random guy on the bench who enters midway through the play and hits someone. They rule says you cannot deliberately run out of bounds to get around the other team, but does not say you cant make a tackle even if you do that. You would get a penalty for running out of bounds on purpose, not for the actual tackle.
I still can’t believe what a horrible job the Offensive Coordinator for Arizona did. It took him 3.5 quarters to see that the middle of the field was being left wide open. What exactly was he doing the whole game? I mean they take photos of every single play, he couldn’t tell that the Pitt safeties were playing 25 yards of the line and backing up once the ball was snapped towards the corners? Wouldn’t that clue you in that maybe 15-20 yard slants would be open all game? Then maybe once they changed you can gun it towards the corners? I thought the whole point in attacking the weak part of a zone was to make the other team defend it, therefore opening up more options. I can’t believe this guy is up for coaching jobs right now.
As far as OT goes, I’m not one that thinks the current system is all that bad. I like the college system for the pros, though I think it could be improved a little. I think the teams should start out from outside of FG range, maybe at like the 50 yard line so that most teams would need at least 2 first downs to get into FG range (I mean 50 yard FG are no guarantee). The go with the same rules, each team gets the ball until there is a winner. It’s simple, it’s exciting, and it gives each team an equal shot at winning. I realize the team that doesn’t start with the ball has a slight advantage knowing what they will need to win, but one team HAS to have the ball first no matter what, there is no way around that.
Thanks AJ, that makes sense because running out of bounds to make a tackle seems like it would have a limited positive effect anyway. So the penalty would be for going out of bounds and not for tackling the opposing player. I think I have it.
I have nothing against Todd Haley, but as I have sort of indicated before, I have some questions about his ability to relate to players (i.e. not piss them off) and I also have questions about whether he is ready for a head coaching job. I thought his game plan against Arizona did leave something to be desired. I realize Arizona does not have a great TE on the roster but they should have gone no huddle earlier and attacked the middle of the field. Contrary to what Gregg wrote, it was wide open.
I felt like Haley was trying to get too cute and run the ball, when in fact the Steelers seemed willing to give him the underneath and middle routes but they did not take them. He did not make Pittsburgh defend the middle of the field until the fourth quarter. The Steelers knew they could stop the running game with their front 7, they just did not want to give up the long pass as well. I have some questions about whether he would be a great head coach.
The OT argument has pretty much gone full circle for me. I do like the college system compared to the pro system but it also does run up statistics, I think having the teams start at 50 yard line would be a start to make it even more fair. I had a slight problem with the NFL OT but after hearing everyone's idea to fix it, I think I would rather stick with the system we have rather than change the rules of football (as some propose) or make it so complicated, it takes an hour to explain it. You're right, it is never going to be absolutely fair and everyone needs to just get over that.
Actually, I remember the announcers making the point that Polmalu was jamming Fitzgerald at the line. The corner was playing 10-15 yards off. Madden called in an "Inverted Cover-2", I think. I don't know that this was frequently happening, but it did happen on more than one occasion. If I'd recorded the game, I'd be able to tell you when. Fitzgerald was lined up in the slot with Polamalu right across from him and the corner so far back as to almost be off the screen.
Also, I'm surprised that TMQ didn't blast Arizona for blitzing on the Steelers' final drive. The first few completions came when AZ was bringing extra people.
So if the corner was playing 10-15 yards off, wouldnt that mean he was just playing safety? Its not an "inverted" cover 2, its a cover 2 just the safety was playing CB and the CB was playing safety.
I'm not saying you are wrong that this was happening, i'm just saying its the same defense that they always play, except they switched two players around. Thats like in baseball a 2B playing CF and the CF playing 2B for an inning...same defense, different players at different spots.
True. And they didn't run enough film then to let me see what happened after Polomalu got the jam on Fitzgerald. I don't know if he still dropped deep after that, or he and the corner doubled Fitzgerald, or what. I also couldn't see if it were one of the plays where Pitt had 2 down lineman, and so could have had an extra DB in the game. I just remember Madden pointing that out.
I'm not saying they weren't playing a Cover 2, but Polomalu was jamming Fitzgerald some of the time.
NO!!!!!!!! I googled it also and Jim Trotter mentioned the Steelers jamming with Polamalu on a couple of plays. I don't recall this at all but if TheCasey said it happened and Jim Trotter did too, it had to have happened at some point.
I want to apologize to Gregg Easterbrook, I was wrong. Polamalu did jam Fitzgerald on several occasions and I am sorry I missed it. I am wrong, he is right. That being said, there is no way the Cardinals could have covered Santonio Holmes with only Antrell Rolle or Adrian Wilson.
Thanks for pointing out that I was incorrect about this. I really don't remember this happening but it probably did, so I was wrong.
Gregg's analysis was spot on and I need to hire an editor.
Well, there is a difference between using Troy to jam him on an occassional play and what Gregg was claiming, which was that Troy was at the line jamming Fitz on every play. As we could see on more then a few plays, that simply wasn't true.
There is a difference in him jamming him every play and only every once in a while because if it was every play I would like to think the Cardinals would have adjusted. Regardless, I said it did not happen, which it did to my surprise. I hate it when Gregg is right...which this is the only time I know of.
Post a Comment