Re: Fantasy Footbaw 4: A competition of caring
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:23 pm
Thank you Bengals for fucking me out of a hefty parlay for a second time this year.


Indiana's DDR Community
http://indyddr.com/forums/




Bah, you could probably lose money if you were the bookie!Merk wrote:God damn. Awful weekend of gambling. My little bankroll is dying :(
I do hope Kubiak is OK. I never like to see anyone, player or sideline, get hurt, even if it's not an acute physical injury from the game. I'm sure the coaches are under an absurd amount of stress that will get to them if the sleep deprivation doesn't first.Merk wrote:The Colts had a huge comeback against an almost comically hard luck Texans team so that's a plus! I'll almost assuredly going to win my big "Will the Colts get 9 or more wins this season?" bet which at this point won't put me even for the year :( yeah... that's how bad it's been.
No need to apologize. I actually checked in on our matchup periodically from Thursday through Monday. It was back-and-forth, up-and-down the whole time. It seems fitting that it ended so close.Riot wrote:Brian I am sorry about this week.
The NFL doesn't do seeding by straight record unfortunately, it's all determined by division winners and then the remaining two teams in each conference get what's called a "wildcard" spot. Essentially I am saying that Denver is going to win the AFC West and the Chiefs are going to take one of the two wildcard spots.SoDeepPolaris wrote:Merk doubts the Chiefs finishing top 3?
But aren't the division winners determined by overall record, first? Tie breaker is division record, then head to head, then I think conference record (if you need more than two tie-breakers...).Merk wrote:The NFL doesn't do seeding by straight record unfortunately, it's all determined by division winners and then the remaining two teams in each conference get what's called a "wildcard" spot. Essentially I am saying that Denver is going to win the AFC West and the Chiefs are going to take one of the two wildcard spots.
Well, a 55-yarder is far from a "sure bet" even for good NFL kickers. I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on Vinateri making a 55-yarder, though he's not a distance kicker (I'll take him over basically any other kicker in the league inside 35 yards in a must-make situation, though, even at 40 years old). Even the distance guys like Janikowski or Scobee aren't going to be 100% beyond 50 yards. But yeah, he missed some other, more "makeable" ones earlier in the game, including a 43-yarder that would have kept major heat on the Colts. Not that even 43 yards is automatic, and his offense didn't give him a lot of help (preferring to score touchdowns, instead, which isn't bad of course) but being as far off as he was on the 55-yard game tying attempt and missing all but one of his other attempts, yeah, he's probably going to have to make an impression on the coaching staff to keep his job. NFL teams rely on their kickers to put desperately needed points on the board when it counts, and he definitely failed miserably at that allowing the Colts to steamroll them in the 2nd half rather than sneak by. Contrast with Vinateri who made a (albeit nearly "chip shot", by some people's definitions) 30-yarder in the 2nd quarter to give the Colts some much needed light on the board going into halftime.Merk wrote:That kicker is done though, I had absolutely no fear on the 55-yarder at the very end and sure enough his kick didn't even have a chance; it would have missed from 35 yards much less 55.
They're really going to have to work on that. I have to wonder how much of Richardson's lackluster performance so far has been a simple lack of running lanes (which he's kinda used to having in abundance). Presumably the coaches are harping on this at least as hard as we are, here...Merk wrote:First half was definitely bad and we looked like how we did in the Chargers game except the O-line managed to look even worse. The run blocking was non-existent (which is par for the course) and the pass protection folded like a God damn house of cards. I'm not sure if people were just missing assignments or what but kudos to Luck for taking sacks and not trying to force a pass that just isn't there.
Like I said, I think both of those should have "stood as called". I saw no evidence that I'd call sufficient to overturn them, but I also wouldn't have seen sufficient evidence to overturn had they been called the other way on the field. In the end, both teams ended up getting burned by those video reversals at somewhat critical moments, so yeah, I don't think either team really derived benefit. And hey, I'm not the referee. I'll readily admit that, much as I may be a rule geek, I get surprised sometimes and later learn that they made a totally correct call.Merk wrote:Officiating was all over the place. The fumble recovery overturn was obviously the most egregious fuckup and I'm not sure if the Andrew Johnson no-catch call was right either. If you look closely there is a *very slight* wiggle of the ball as he was sliding out of bounds which I'm guessing is what the refs considered the indisputable evidence but really it should have stood. The roughing the passer penalty on Luck was 100% correct though, there was absolutely no reason to hit Luck since he was clearly going out of bounds. You could argue that it's a shitty rule but the implementation of it in Luck's case was correct. You're right though I ultimately don't think there was a net gain for either side.