Home / General / Beast Mode

Beast Mode

Comments
/
/
/
529 Views

Beast Quake 2

Discuss

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • tsam

    AAAAAWWWWWWWW YEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!

    /discussion

    • AlanInSF

      Proof once again that you guys would be nowhere without Cal and Stanford.

      • tsam

        What about a pack 0 badgers??

  • wjts

    Did he not step out of bounds around the 40, or am I drunker than I think I am?

    • 2liberal

      they showed a closeup and he did not step out.

      • wjts

        Well, that’s just what the biased pro-Seattle media want you to think.

        • tsam

          HE DIDN’T GODDAMNIT YOU SHUT YOUR FILTHY MOUTH

  • 2liberal

    as a cards fan i was disappointed with the results. The D needed to show up big time but fell flat on their face. the cards hung in there for a long time but fell apart at the end. about that run – he is probably on PEDs like the rest of that team. Not that I am bitter or anything.

    • Denverite

      Wait, there are “Cards fans”?

      • 2liberal

        the patiots are my AFC team. If they don’t have to travel to Denver, you have no chance.

        • Denverite

          [Insert Denverite comment here that Denverite is too scared to make because talking shit might jinx the Broncos tomorrow night tonight.]

    • ColBatGuano

      Those PED jokes are soooo 2012.

      NFC playoffs go through Seattle.

    • Joe_JP

      The defense could have showed up all game & six points of offense (forgivable — you had a third string QB against a freight train here) wasn’t going to get it done.

      Arizona has a small chance that just maybe St. Louis can beat Seattle & they can win their own game. Or, hope things fall out so they face a soft opponent for their WC game.

      • Denverite

        If Arizona wins on Sunday, they’re pretty clearly going to be traveling to Carolina or Atlanta, right? (Because they’ll be a game better than the GB-Detroit loser.)

        • Joe_JP

          Right. It looks like that if Detroit loses, even if Arizona loses, Arizona would still be the #5 since they beat Detroit earlier in the year. If Arizona and GB both lose, it looks like Arizona would be #6 if they go by conference record. I note too that Arizona is partially in this situation since they lost to the Falcons.

    • tsam

      The D was there in the first half. The D spent 2/3 of the game on the field–they can’t win that way. That’s what Seattle did to Philly last week.

  • Denverite

    [Insert Denverite comment here that Denverite is too scared to make because talking shit might jinx the Broncos tomorrow night.]

  • busker type

    I know that I couldn’t tackle him, so I will refrain from criticizing anyone else for not tackling him.

    • tsam

      Well, Peterson could have just shoved him out of bounds, but he went for a strip instead. Big mistake.

  • RobertL

    Yep – I saw this game today all the way over here in Brisbane.

    But I’m a ’49ers fan so both of these teams can FOAD as far as I’m concerned.

  • rea

    I thought conventional wisdom around here was that running backs are obsolete?

    • Denverite

      I think it’s more that they’re fungible, so it’s silly to waste money or draft picks on them.

    • tsam

      That’s pretty unconventional wisdom. The stats certainly don’t bear that out. I’m not sure I buy that they’re fungible either–there are very good ones and mediocre ones, and it’s tough to win 12 games without a really good running back.

      • howard

        Lots of guys can run behind a good offensive line and even great running backs have trouble behind a lousy line so you spend your money and draft picks on the line and not on running backs.

        • tsam

          Well, that’s true–a good QB and O-line are the highest priority, but there are good running backs and really good ones, and I think the really good ones are worth the money as long as the contract is structured to account for their sadly short lifespan.

        • Right, which is why the Seahawks are probably dumping Lynch in the offseason, despite runs like tonight.

          • ColBatGuano

            If Lynch wants to play another year I wouldn’t be surprised that the Seahawks find a way to bring him back.

            • He’s under contract next year. The question is whether a) he will play under that last year and b) whether Seattle has the money to not release him. And theoretically c) are they sick of dealing with him, but I think they can handle that so long as he is the only distraction, a problem when Harvin was there.

              • tsam

                He’s such a crowd draw and inspiration to the rest of the team. That alone makes him pretty valuable.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  He’s such a crowd draw

                  You seriously think that letting Lynch go would hurt Seattle attendance next year?

                • tsam

                  No.

                  But he’s is just ADORED around here. There is something to that. Not sure if it matters in the bigger picture. Probably not.

              • ColBatGuano

                Unlike Harvin, I don’t think his teammates find him a distraction. It’s all really about cap space and whether they truly believe Turbin/Michael can replace all he brings.

        • joe from Lowell

          Right, this.

          I like Jonas Gray as much as the next Pats fan, but putting him on the SI cover was absurd. He had a nice game. So did Vollmer, Connelly, Stork, Wendell, Solder, and James Devlin.

      • Denverite

        and it’s tough to win 12 games without a really good running back

        Really? Of the teams that are likely to win 12 games this year, more don’t have a really good running back (Denver, NE, Arizona, maybe Detroit) than do (Seattle, maybe GB).

        I do agree that the whole “fungibility” point can be overstated, though. There are only a handful of running backs who can really take the top off a defense, and they’re really valuable. Seattle and Denver (the two best defensive teams this year) show how much easier it is to game plan against an offense when you can play straight 4-3 personnel at tackle the running back within a few yards of the line.

        • tsam

          Ball isn’t really good? I think he is.

          • Denverite

            If you mean Monte, he’s pretty much been inactive (now on the IR) for 2/3 of the year. The Bronco’s starting RB since Week 11 has been CJ Anderson. He’s been pretty good — about 4.6 YPA and 99.5 YPG. But that actually tends to prove the fungibility point. If a second year undrafted free agent can essentially put up Pro Bowl numbers — and against pretty good defenses — then why waste a draft pick?

      • Scott Lemieux

        and it’s tough to win 12 games without a really good running back.

        Actually, the effect of the marginal quality of your running game on the quality of your offense is small, and competent running backs aren’t hard to find. Who’s the “really good running back” on the Broncos and Patriots?

        • Denverite

          Actually, the effect of the marginal quality of your running game on the quality of your offense is small

          I’m curious what you mean by this. Are you saying that a team with a really good running game is only a little better than a team with a plain ol’ good running game?

          • Scott Lemieux

            Yes. The quality of your offense is overwhelmingly determined by the quality of your passing offense. You’d rather have a good running game than not have one, of course, but it’s a marginal effect. And you don’t need expensive running backs to have a good running game.

            • Denverite

              That’s what I thought. I used to agree with you (well, I still agree with your last point); I don’t any more. I think that against the best defenses, you simply have to be able to run competently. Otherwise, teams who can put pressure on you with the front four will drop seven, and the DLs will pin back their ears.

              There’s a good discussion about why in here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/game-previews/2014/game-preview-den-cin

              The long story short is after the Denver-STL game, there was a lot of soul searching in the Denver FO, and they realized that most of their losses over the past few years had pretty much the same narrative — Denver gets down (often because of special teams miscues) and abandons the run, teams start sending their DLs on every play and roughing up Manning, and the Broncos rack up a ton of completions and passing yards but can’t score.

              • Scott Lemieux

                Well, that shows that there’s a strategic disadvantage to playing from behind. It doesn’t really show that the the relative quality of your running game is important.

                The key here is that the quality of running games at the NFL operate within a very narrow band. If the best running teams got 8 yards a carry and the worst ones 1.5, the quality of your running game would be a big deal. But the floor and ceiling are much closer together at the NFL level, and generally you can’t count on individual running backs to get near the ceiling every year.

                To return to our point of agreement, it’s worth noting that the one contending team whose running game is now bad enough to be a real concern, Indianapolis, invested a first round pick in a player who had previously been taken #3 overall.

                • Denverite

                  I’m not sure I’d consider Indianapolis to be a “contending” team. They’re bad defensively and they can’t run the ball. I guess if they can snag the #3 seed I’d like them against SD or Baltimore, but that’s about it.

                  I think we’re probably closer than not re: importance of a running game. I don’t think you need a particularly good one — but you need to be able to run competently if the other team is giving that to you. In most of Denver’s losses over the past two years, they haven’t been able to, whether by choice or by necessity. (The two losses where this wouldn’t apply — last year’s regular season losses to NE and Indy — were games that turned on special teams and turnovers.)

                • tsam

                  Indy is a contender. They have laid a few eggs, but counting out Andrew Luck is not a good idea. Though if I were in the AFC playoffs, that’s the team I’d want to play first.

                • joe from Lowell

                  Maybe I’m just biased towards the running game after watching BB party like it’s 1949 against Indy this year.

                  Extra tackles. Stacked TEs. Plus fullback and their biggest tailback. Gronk’s assignment was to reverse field and run down the line of scrimmage, crashing into as many people as possible, then pop out the other side. It was fun to watch.

            • joe from Lowell

              I think this is a stat-driven argument that ignores the complexities of the game.

              A good running game that keeps the defense honest opens up the passing game. A team that has a bad passing game and is forced to run a lot is going to put up good rushing stats, but lose a lot, and that’s because they’re unbalanced, not because running the ball isn’t important.

              I suspect that merely ranking teams by their running yards or yards per carry and noting that it doesn’t line up with overall team quality is misleading, in the same way that teams with the best pass defense stats in the league often suck, because what the stat really shows is that they have such a bad run defense that opponents just keep exploiting them there.

              • Scott Lemieux

                A good running game that keeps the defense honest opens up the passing game.

                The problem is that, at least at the NFL level, there’s no evidence for this. If you can throw, you can throw, and if you can’t you can’t.

                A team that has a bad passing game and is forced to run a lot is going to put up good rushing stats

                ? Some bad passing teams, like Minnesota and the Jets, have a good running game, but some don’t (Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Oakland.)

                • Denverite

                  The problem is that, at least at the NFL level, there’s no evidence for this. If you can throw, you can throw, and if you can’t you can’t.

                  One of the Grantlanders did something on this in the past year. His conclusion was that play action is the most effective play pretty much across the board — and as we famously saw in the Super Bowl last year (“Who cares if he hands off the ball? We’ll just tackle ’em three yards down the field!”), if you don’t have a competent running game, play action isn’t very effective.

                • joe from Lowell

                  The problem is that, at least at the NFL level, there’s no evidence for this.

                  Again, “I think this is a stat-driven argument that ignores the complexities of the game.”

                  Among economists, there is often a dynamic wherein factors that are the most difficult to measure are dismissed as unimportant. You sometimes see it sports statistical analysis, too.

                  What statistic would show how many times the safety bit on a run fake, or how often the defense didn’t come out in a nickel because they decided they needed a front seven to stop the run?

                  Some bad passing teams, like Minnesota and the Jets, have a good running game, but some don’t (Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Oakland.): yes, and? How is the observation “some teams have a good running game but some don’t” supposed to address the point that having a good running game that keeps the defense honest can be important even without putting up big rushing stats?

                • tsam

                  A serious run threat keeps 8 in the box, especially on spread/shotgun formations. Single high safety leaves a ton of opportunities on the field. So you could say that an average running back could accomplish that with the help of a solid O line. You could also say that a solid O line and a guy like Lynch that is like trying to tackle Sherman tank makes running that much more valuable. It wears down defenses, helps you win the time of possession battle, and opens tight end seams/crosses and go routes on the outside.

                  Not that this refutes your argument about 1, 2 or 3 draft picks-those should be your linemen and quarterbacks. But I don’t think grabbing a mediocre running back is going to tip the balance in your favor.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Again, “I think this is a stat-driven argument that ignores the complexities of the game.”

                  The idea that the people who study this question “ignore the complexity of the game” — that they’ve never considered the ubiquitous argument that “you need a running game to set up the passing game” — is absurd. Everyone is aware of the argument; it’s not some original insight. And if it was a major effect, it would show up in the data. If a better running game significantly improved the performance of QBs, this would be visible. It isn’t.

                  Now, it may be true that there’s a minor effect that is just swamped by other variables that doesn’t show up in the data. If you want to say that all things being equal a superior running game helps the passing game a bit I won’t argue with you. But it’s just not a big deal. At the NFL level, you can have an effective passing game without a good running attack and a good running attack won’t help the passing game if the QB isn’t good. And it’s overwhelmingly clear that the quality of a team’s passing game is far more important than the quality of a team’s running game.

                  What statistic would show how many times the safety bit on a run fake, or how often the defense didn’t come out in a nickel because they decided they needed a front seven to stop the run

                  This would, of course, show up in the efficiency of your passing game.

                • joe from Lowell

                  And if it was a major effect, it would show up in the data.

                  See what I mean? Just like economics.

                  If a better running game significantly improved the performance of QBs, this would be visible.

                  And this is what I mean about ignoring the complexity of the game. If a team runs just enough to keep the defense honest, and it helps the pass game, that’s not going to show up in the stats one would traditionally use to evaluate the team’s success running the ball, because the point isn’t to use the running game itself as the major offensive weapon to pick up yardage and score touchdowns. A team that isn’t using the running game to set up passing is going to put up better rushing numbers, and sure as heck, you’re not going to end up seeing much of a statistical correlation there.

                  At the NFL level, you can have an effective passing game without a good running attack

                  Not quite. You can have an effective passing game without putting up good rushing stats. What we’re saying is, those aren’t exactly the same thing.

                  This would, of course, show up in the efficiency of your passing game.

                  If you had a control group of games in which the team didn’t use the run to set up the pass to compare it to, sure. But since organizations that do a good, or lousy, job drafting guys involved in the running game (linemen, tight ends, running backs) also do the lousy job drafting quarterbacks and receivers – bad organizations are bad organizations, at least on one side of the ball – then you’re left comparing apples and oranges.

                  This is one of those questions that requires more than the citation of a statistic. It requires the interpretation and explanation of several different statistics.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  See what I mean? Just like economics.

                  How? We can, in fact, very reliably measure the quality of a team’s passing and running games. If there was a major effect by one on the other, how exactly could this be absent from the data?

                  A team that isn’t using the running game to set up passing is going to put up better rushing numbers, and sure as heck, you’re not going to end up seeing much of a statistical correlation there.

                  Nobody who has any idea what they’re doing is going to measure the quality of a running attack by gross yardage. They measure the quality of a running attack on a per play basis. How often you run is beside the point.

                  Not quite. You can have an effective passing game without putting up good rushing stats. What we’re saying is, those aren’t exactly the same thing.

                  If you have no idea what kind of stats analysts actually use.

                  then you’re left comparing apples and oranges.

                  This is silly. QBs with long careers will almost certainly play with a wide variety in the quality of their running games. If quality running games improved their performances, you would see it. You don’t.

                  It requires the interpretation and explanation of several different statistics.

                  This is widely understood. The fact that you haven’t read the research doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

              • shah8

                You’re not ever going to convince Lemieux of that. He doesn’t actually understand this game well enough even to understand that football statistics are barely above noise, for the most part.

                • joe from Lowell

                  You know who are really unimportant?

                  Nose tackles. Those guys’ stats suck!

            • tsam

              11-4 Seattle has a comparably pathetic passing offense–unless you call slants passing, but that’s really an extension of running.

              • ColBatGuano

                While Seattle’s total passing yards are low, they are 8th in yards/attempt, 12th in yards/reception and 8th in total offense . When a team leads the league (by 30 yards/game over #2) in rushing, they tend to throw it less.

                • Denverite

                  Yeah, this. The best stat to look at over the course of a season is passer rating. On a game-per-game basis, it’s generally YPA.

                  Though I’ll note that FO has Seattle at #12 in terms of passing offense, which is OK but not great.

                • tsam

                  One thing I will say is that their passing is improving very quickly over the last few games. There is also the Wilson factor. A defense can execute all it’s assignments, cover well, and Wilson will jet out of the pocket and burn them for 20. Then he runs out of bounds so they can’t even lay the lumber to him. That’s got to be demoralizing as hell for a defense. It does plug some of the holes that a not-so-great passing game leaves.

                • It’s worth noting that Seattle is 11-4 with the worst receivers in the NFL.

                • Denverite

                  It’s worth noting that Seattle is 11-4 with the worst receivers in the NFL.

                  KC would like a quick word with you.

    • Joshua

      Not obsolete, just easily replaceable and not worth signing to huge contracts or drafting high.

      • Scott Lemieux

        Right. People seem to willfully confuse “don’t use a top 5 pick or spend a lot of money to acquire a running back” with “don’t employ or use running backs.”

        • Hogan

          Or for that matter, “presidential rhetoric has never been powerful enough to overcome the multiple veto points in domestic policymaking” with “presidents are nothing but pitiful helpless giants.”

          It’s very odd.

  • burnspbesq

    Odd that someone who purports to be an ally of labor would continue to support a cartel whose business model has at its core the disablement and premature death of employees.

    • joe from Lowell

      And he types on a computer, powered by fossil fuels.

      Also too, Al Gore lives in a house.

  • keta

    Guy’s a monster, but does Seattle resign him next year at a $8.5 million cap hit, or trade/release him?

    • Denverite

      Not even a question.

      • Scott Lemieux

        Yep. Turbin and Michael will be just fine. I like watching Lynch as much as the next guy, but Lynch’s next contract is enormously likely to be a disaster for the team that signs him.

        • patrick II

          Not to mention that Russel Wilson, who is getting about $750,000/yr on his rookie contract will be a free agent in 2016. It would be tough to keep Lynch under current conditions, but when Wilson gets paid real quarterback money it will be tougher yet.

          • He will be getting that real money next year. They will sign the extension soon after he is eligible for a new contract. Same with Wagner.

    • Release, probably. Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner need to be signed and they just committed to 4-year contracts for KJ Wright and Cliff Avril.

      • Denverite

        Theoretically they could franchise him for a year and gamble that they could get an extension done with Wilson during the year, and then franchise Wilson the following year if not. But (i) the franchise tag for a QB would be truly massive, and (ii) if you don’t give Wilson a multi-year deal, he’s probably going to walk.

        So, yeah, it’s like 99% that Lynch is going to walk unless he’s willing to sign an absurdly team-friendly deal (though if anyone is willing to do that, it might be Lynch).

        • Brian

          If they franchise Lynch, it would be awesome to watch how surly he could get.

        • Yeah, it’s possible they could franchise him. Would he show up though?

          No way the Wilson extension doesn’t get done.

          • tsam

            The Wilson thing had best get done, or I will lose my absolute SHIT.

    • ColBatGuano

      Lynch is signed through next season. The danger is that he holds out or that Seattle doesn’t want to pay.They don’t need to sign him to a new contract so franchising is out of the question.

  • tsam

    Oof. Peyton–what the hell, man?

    • Denverite

      i has sad

      • tsam

        Sympathy sad. Ah well. They’re still in the playoffs. They have time to square away some stuff.

It is main inner container footer text