dave mcbride

Bill Barnwell's column today was interesting. He pointed to another infamous playoff occasion where the flags flew late in the game buy not for the first 58 minutes--TB vs GB last season: 'We know the NFL has a long track record of trying to avoid flags in big games. Teams use that information to their advantage. As former Patriots executive Scott Pioli noted, the Patriots deliberately played more physically in the conference title games and Super Bowls, knowing referees were unlikely to call penalties. If you watch any game as closely as we watch the Super Bowl, you're going to see missed calls on both sides. The bigger issue for me is the timing of the calls. Like a strike zone in baseball, players generally seem to be comfortable with games being called loosely or tightly by the refs, as long as they can get a sense of what that is early in the game and adjust accordingly. In this case, in a game in which the refs seemed comfortable with players grabbing and tugging in coverage, Wilson was flagged for something that I'm sure other defenders on both sidelines did earlier in the game without a penalty. (Of course, the Bengals have also benefited from some questionable missed calls throughout their run, most notably against the Chiefs in the regular season.) This is the second time in two seasons that we've seen officials let things go to a dramatic degree before cracking down with the game on the line. Last time around, it was in the 2020 NFC Championship Game, where the Buccaneers and Packers basically played out a Mutant League Football game for 58 minutes. In the final two minutes, though, Kevin King was called for a defensive pass interference penalty on third down, extending Tampa Bay's final drive and eventually allowing it to run out the clock. We now have two data points from two different referees suggesting that the league might allow teams to go all-out for the first 58 minutes before encouraging referees to crack down in the final two minutes of games. When coaches are instructing their players in next year's conference title games and Super Bowl to play more aggressively than they would in a typical contest, they might also need to tell their defensive backs and linemen to get back to normal after the two-minute warning in the second half.' https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider/story/_/id/33284366/how-rams-came-back-beat-bengals-super-bowl-defensive-adjustment-inevitable-cooper-kupp-star-performances

Just looked up that 1978 AFC championship game. I thought the Bills turning it over 9 times vs the Cowboys in the SB (now talk about a BAD Super Bowl ...) was an unmatchable feat, but my god, the Oilers turned it over 9 times too vs Pitt in that game! Pastorini threw 5 picks and Earl Campbell alone fumbled three times. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/197901070pit.htm Also, the Rams were almost as bad vs the Cowboys -- they turned it over 7 times. Christ. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/197901070ram.htm

I though Mahomes played like crap most of that game and that SF, instead of making a stop late (after the Jimmy G miss to Sanders) and giving themselves one more shot, collapsed like a house of cards on KC’s final possession. It was a fine game, and better than the average SB. But it was hardly great. Last night’s game certainly had more drama and probably better qb play overall. Losing OBJ really affected his play. They were decimated at the receiver position. Skowronek is not good.

I'd say Pitt/GB and Pitt/AZ too. Those were all mistake-plagued games. I felt this one was more cleanly played than all of those, and as for that Pitt/Seattle game, this one was at least close to the end and the teams played better.

I think Mixon gets the first on that third down run. No idea why wasn't on the field there. That was a weak run by the other guy (although Donald made a great play).

@ScottLaw was being sarcastic ...

There have been a LOT of bad SBs. They've been better in recent decades (partly because the Pats seemed constitutionally incapable of blowing anyone out or getting blown out in their 9 appearances with Brady), but for a very long time they were generally blowouts. And there have been blowouts in recent years too. Seattle/Denver, anyone?? KC/TB? http://www.espn.com/nfl/superbowl/history/winners Every SB has its share of mistakes and bad plays. And the Bengals line wasn't gassed; they just suck. They are who we thought they were. I've seen a LOT worse. This is the best game since the Feb 2017 game (Atl/NE), in my opinion.

I thought it was a pretty good game. In my opinion it's the best SB since the Atlanta/NE game. The Philly/NE game had zero defense, and the SF/KC game was more "blah" than this one. Last year's SB and the NE/Rams one were bad. The stars all showed up last night and played well, and in my view a 23-20 score is pretty much the perfect number--it indicates that both offenses and defenses made plays. I worry less about a SB team being not as dominant as one might like; the game should be judged on its own terms. At the end of the day, it was a see-saw, hard fought battle with a lot of important individual plays. The fact that the teams are flawed is meaningless to me. The Bills are flawed too.

Good post. People have laughed at me for saying it was a good game, and I still believe that. At the end of the day, there were lead changes, just the right amount of scoring for my taste (24-21/23-20 indicates balance between offensive and defensive play, and the points don't come too cheap), and the good players on both teams made plays. For the Rams, Stafford delivered, Cupp delivered, Donald delivered, Von Miller delivered, and I'd even argue that Ramsey delivered outside of that one deep pass to Chase early one. He broke up the intended TD pass that held the Bengals to 3 a few plays later, and he was obviously blatantly facemasked by Higgins on the TD throw. For the Bengals, Burrow, Mixon, Higgins, and Chase all played well. On D, their good front seven guys played well too. Moreover, it came down to two final possessions. One team got it done, and the best player on the field -- Donald -- made sure the other team didn't on a couple of great defensive plays. The tackle on the third down was amazing, although I think if Mixon had run it he may well have made it. One could gripe about the reffing late, but the PI was definitely PI (the holding call was sketchy) and the non-call on Higgins obviates any claims by Bengals fans that it was rigged. Anyway, it was a hard-fought, balanced, and tight game. Not sure what people are looking for in these games. Last year's game was awful, and I felt this one was better than the previous three too (Rams/NE, KC/SF, and the no-defense Philly/NE game). I honestly think much of the criticism stems from the fact that Bills fans felt that the Bills were the more deserving team (they weren't--they lost fair and square to KC).

I have said elsewhere that if people actually watched that team over the course of the season, they’d realize how terrible their line actually is.

The Bengals’ line is actually terrible and one of the worst in the league.

People don’t seem to like defense. Oh well.

The reason the Bengals lost is because their offensive line made it clear who they actually were — a truly terrible line that couldn’t handle any decent D-line. They were utterly overwhelmed in the second half.

It may well be. I saw that coming and thought “oh no.”

I thought the game was fantastic.

You’re not making the best LA thing!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_taco more specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kogi_Korean_BBQ

I don't know if he did. The NFL says he did and there is some circumstantial but hardly dispositive evidence. What I always found laughable was the idea that Brady destroying his phone was a problem. Hell, if I was a player and the NFL demanded my phone from me, I'd say "screw you" to them too. The last thing I'd do is trust the league to handle my phone properly. Destroying it solves that problem in a permanent way. One last point: Brady played better in the second half of that Indy playoff game than in the first half ...

I appreciate this, but I don't believe that Brady is still doing this at all. The risk is too great -- people are watching him -- and he's the opposite of a dumb person. My view is that Brady is the ultimate leader and players who play with him buy into his winning mentality. The tolerance for mistakes goes down wherever he goes. It was totally missing before he got to Tampa, and virtually every TB player says that he changed the mindset in a massive way. I also believe that the offenses he oversees are less "sloppy" -- more precision and fewer plays blown up. And Brady has the juice to say to a coach "get this fumbler off the field" and to not to throw to receivers who mess up. I'll never forget what happened to Michael Floyd in NE. A productive receiver in AZ, he gets cut for a DUI issue and gets picked up by NE in 2016. In his second game there, he ran an in route where he was supposed to cut sharply and cross horizontally. Instead, he lazily rounded his route, got too deep, and Brady got picked off on what should have been a completion. He never saw another pass thrown his way and was off the team pronto.

As a person with a UCLA bias, is Haskins the reason that Charbonnet left the program? He was dominant for UCLA this past season and could well have gone in the second at some point had he declared.

Pace vs. Boselli is a good comp. I remember Boselli being the best, but maybe I simply watched more of his games because he was in the AFC. They were both great. I agree about Erik Williams at RT!

I believe Boselli is more deserving. Because of the injury situation in the NFL, I think the Sandy Koufax rule applies for their HOF more than in any other league. That is, a five-year span of greatness counts for me more than 12 years of very good-ness. Boselli was the best o-lineman in the league from 1996-2000 (his rookie year was 1995). He was truly a dominator. The same logic applies to Gale Sayers and Terrell Davis. (Always bear in mind that Davis had a ridiculous 1,140 yards and 12 TDs in 8 post season games -- which translates to 2,280 yards and 24 TDs over a 16 game season against the best competition.) As for Sandy Koufax, he had 5 amazing season in a row (1962-1966) and one good season (1961). He retired after the 1966 season. Before that, he wasn't much of anything. But he certainly deserves being in the HOF.

For me: brady montana unitas manning otto graham (https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GrahOt00.htm)

Now you twist what I say by making a money-based argument, which I never did and never would. I never placed a dollar value on any of these players. All I did was say that Mixon was significantly better than Singletary and a difference maker. And the resort to insult is a sad way to end an interesting debate. Oh well.

Dunno. It's so hard to say because so many of those interchangeable NE RBs only played there. I suppose some of the receivers moved around -- Deion Branch, Randy Moss. And Brady himself only missed that one season (when Cassel was QB).

Here's what I do know. The Bengals line is terrible. Like, really terrible, and a good bit worse than the Bills' line. All you have to do is watch it play--it's basically Robert Hicks and Melvin Fowler turned up to 11. A couple of those guys can barely play. Going into the draft last year, the Bengals took a TON of heat for taking Chase over Sewell given the terrible talent on that line, and while obviously Chase is great, their line remains a shambling wreck. What they do have is an elite QB, a great receiving corps, and a difference-making RB that teams always account for. To be sure, I totally believe that QBs often make their own sacks much of the time, but it's also the case that a line can be terrible too and cause lots of sacks on their own. Two things can be true at once. They literally couldn't block TN, and there wasn't a thing Burrow could do about it. They did play better vs. KC, no doubt. But there were far too many games where they were horrible. I have a feeling I have watched more of the Bengals than you this season simply because you're a season-ticket holder. He's a very, very good RB, and teams really do try and key on him. Where I will agree with you is that they should not give him a big second contract. They got while the getting was good regarding Mixon. As for him vs. Singletary, I'd feel confident in betting a tidy sum of money that there's not a single NFL personnel guy in the league who thinks the latter is better than Mixon. That doesn't mean that Singletary isn't pretty good. As for YPA, I firmly believe it's an indicative stat, but then again I also believe that Allen was one of the best QBs in the league last season despite a disappointing ypa. Stat lines are important, but they can be deceiving. Context really matters. Whoops - they did sign him to a second contract (4 years / $48 million): https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cincinnati-bengals/joe-mixon-21789/. Not what I would have done, but if he helps them win a SB then I guess it's OK.