[Flem72]

 mgoetze, on 2016-January-25, 21:11, said:

Don't worry, you'll see it in 2 weeks. Carson Palmer played much the way I expected Peyton Manning to play, and that defense the Broncos ran against the Patriots wouldn't work against the Panthers.

OK, you're all bringing out the homer in me.

I've only seen Carolina play three times, and it seems to me that they are pretty much a well-oiled machine. But it won't be "that"defense, it'll be one designed for what the Donks see on tape and what they've been told by other NFC coordinators about Carolina's tendencies. And Newton hasn't been tested under full game pressure.

As for the "10 points under" theory:
First, a factual note: that NE TD was not a product of their offense.
Second, this kind of analysis should be based on scoring opportunities: What happens if Carolina has to forego TDs for FG attempts? I don't have any idea how good Carolina's FG guy might be....ours can score consistently from 50+.

All that said, I doubt whether any unit can play 60 minutes like that two games in a row; however, if wiliness, emotion and commitment can turn the tide, this defense is the one to do it.That ball bounces funny; that's why they play the games.

[andrei]

 mgoetze, on 2016-January-25, 21:11, said:

Don't worry, you'll see it in 2 weeks.

We just saw a big collapse, lol, wrong team though.

 mgoetze, on 2016-January-25, 21:11, said:

that defense the Broncos ran against the Patriots wouldn't work against the Panthers.

Yeah right.

[jjbrr]

 jjbrr, on 2015-September-27, 21:37, said:

peyton manning is the greatest of all time

ainec

[Zelandakh]

 andrei, on 2016-February-07, 21:20, said:

Yeah right.

Any half-decent defence would have worked against a team that refused to do anything but zone runs on 1st down and ran into a wall of referee blindness on 2nd and 3rd downs. Was I alone in finding the remark "However, Carolina is out of challenges" petulant to the point of saying "Hey, you embarassed us on our big day...TWICE!" What is certain is that there were no serious decisions that went Carolina's way for the rest of the game; and the holding penalty at the end was completely LOL the way they had called the game.

Which raises another point. How easy would it be to buy an American Football game without even contacting a player, just by nobbling the OC and the refs? Doesn't have to be the superbowl, you can potentially make plenty of cash just on a college or minor league game. Does the NFL monitor betting patterns the way most major football leagues do?

[billw55]

The officiating wasn't great, but wasn't one sided either. Denver took a 15 yarder for a late hit that was a total phantom on replay, with the runner obviously not down yet when the second hit occurred. The early taunting penalty on Talib was iffy too, he and the receiver were jawing in each other's face totally equally that I could see. I figured Talib was flagged mainly for being a dirtbag, which he proved later with a flagrantly dangerous facemask when he knew it wouldn't cost them anything.

The late holding call in the endzone was obviously correct, I don't get the complaint there.

[kenberg]

Since I don't watch often I refrain from commenting but even I watch the superbowl and there were two things that stunned me.

Of course there should be a limit on challenges, but I had always thought that the limit took effect through challenges for which the ruling on the field was upheld. Having a limit on the number of challenges for which the ruling on the field was found to be wrong strikes me as very weird. Obviously it is the rule since it was applied, but it's weird.

And then there was the punt return where the runner was not tackled as soon as he got the ball because the potential tacklers, within a foot or two of him, thought a fair catch had been signaled. Again I guess it can happen because it did happen, but I had never heard of it before.

My apologies for my naivety.

All in all I enjoyed it and I think that the Carolina qb has a great future ahead of him. He has a lot of weight for a quarterback but he seems to be able to handle it.

[Zelandakh]

 billw55, on 2016-February-08, 19:35, said:

The late holding call in the endzone was obviously correct, I don't get the complaint there.

American sports are traditionally called extremely loosely in big games ("let the players play", "don't have the refs decide the game", etc) so such holding was going on the entire game. Yes it was an obvious foul but there were plenty of other examples during the game that were not called. My view is that a sport should not have effectively different rules for play-offs and the final than for the rest of the time. If something is a foul in a regular season game it should also be called in a big game. Let the players play harder sure but not cheat more. Unfortunately that is the reality of the way American sports are run and arguably the main reason why the defensive team almost always beats the offensive team in the superbowl.

[billw55]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-09, 06:58, said:

American sports are traditionally called extremely loosely in big games ("let the players play", "don't have the refs decide the game", etc) so such holding was going on the entire game. Yes it was an obvious foul but there were plenty of other examples during the game that were not called. My view is that a sport should not have effectively different rules for play-offs and the final than for the rest of the time. If something is a foul in a regular season game it should also be called in a big game. Let the players play harder sure but not cheat more. Unfortunately that is the reality of the way American sports are run and arguably the main reason why the defensive team almost always beats the offensive team in the superbowl.

I agree, up to the comment about American sports. Rules should be the same.

But soccer is no different. Allowed contact varies at least as much, and to my eye more. Effectively having only one official who can call fouls contributes to this. I have seen international matches that resembled rugby. Players know this, and right from the opening whistle they are pushing the limit to see what is allowed today.

[Cyberyeti]

 billw55, on 2016-February-08, 19:35, said:

The officiating wasn't great, but wasn't one sided either. Denver took a 15 yarder for a late hit that was a total phantom on replay, with the runner obviously not down yet when the second hit occurred. The early taunting penalty on Talib was iffy too, he and the receiver were jawing in each other's face totally equally that I could see. I figured Talib was flagged mainly for being a dirtbag, which he proved later with a flagrantly dangerous facemask when he knew it wouldn't cost them anything.

The late holding call in the endzone was obviously correct, I don't get the complaint there.

The complaint was that Carolina receivers were hit early and/or held all day and those weren't called.

[Zelandakh]

 billw55, on 2016-February-09, 07:55, said:

But soccerfootball is no different.

You are right but in a different way to how you meant. Yes, different referees have different lines but that is not a problem so long as the line is constant regardless of whether it is a second division game or the World Cup. Where football gets it wrong is in forcing the referees to use a completely different line in major chamiponship finals than that that was used for the preliminary stages. That is less of a cultural thing than of FIFA trying to make sure regional differences are evened out but the nett effect is that certain actions get singled out for unusually severe penalties. The difference is (arguably) not as marked as in American sports but nonetheless something I find annoying, particularly when the World Cup comes around.

[billw55]

At a world cup, the officials are drawn from all over the world. I think this pretty much guarantees uneven officiating, even if that is not the intent. I suppose the difference in American football is that the effect is predictable.

And yes, I know that soccer is really called football futbol.


Changing gears, what thoughts have people about that late fumble that Newton appeared to hop away from? I wasn't sure what to make of that.

[Cyberyeti]

 billw55, on 2016-February-09, 08:53, said:

Changing gears, what thoughts have people about that late fumble that Newton appeared to hop away from? I wasn't sure what to make of that.

My view on first viewing was that it looked like at the time Newton made the decision that a Panther was about to recover it, so he didn't want to mess that up.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-February-09, 09:20, said:

My view on first viewing was that it looked like at the time Newton made the decision that a Panther was about to recover it, so he didn't want to mess that up.

I agree and think he thought he could keep out of it without any damage coming from it. But additionally he had received no protection from the refs all night with at least one occasion of a Bronco picking him up and throwing him down that would have been called as a 15 yarder in any other game of the year. So I suspect he was also hoping not to give himself up as an easy target on the floor where every Bronco on the pitch could legitimately hit him while defenceless.

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-09, 09:47, said:

I agree and think he thought he could keep out of it without any damage coming from it. But additionally he had received no protection from the refs all night with at least one occasion of a Bronco picking him up and throwing him down that would have been called as a 15 yarder in any other game of the year. So I suspect he was also hoping not to give himself up as an easy target on the floor where every Bronco on the pitch could legitimately hit him while defenceless.

I also seem to have lost touch with what you're allowed to do as far as helmet to helmet contact is concerned. On the defensive touchdown, there is clear HtH contact, I thought you couldn't touch the QB's head in a passing situation.

[billw55]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-February-09, 09:56, said:

I also seem to have lost touch with what you're allowed to do as far as helmet to helmet contact is concerned. On the defensive touchdown, there is clear HtH contact, I thought you couldn't touch the QB's head in a passing situation.

It has something to do with their nebulous concept of a "defenseless" player. A quarterback with the ball is not considered defenseless. Or something.


As for the fumble, I wondered if maybe for a split second Newton anticipated the ball popping out, and so reflexively hopped in the direction he expected it to go.

[Cyberyeti]

 billw55, on 2016-February-09, 10:29, said:

It has something to do with their nebulous concept of a "defenseless" player. A quarterback with the ball is not considered defenseless. Or something.

Not sure, if you try to bat down a pass as a defensive player and your fingers touch the QB's helmet it's always called.

[Al_U_Card]

Newton's hesitation looked like bad-shoulder induced protective mode to me.