The Eagles have a far better defense. Expect Moss and Culpepper to have good nights, but not anywhere near last week. The Vikings have to run the ball a lot this game. The Vikes will not shut down Owens for sure -- who on that D can take on any of the Eagles' offensive position players? Eagles win on a defensive play. Don't expect a shootout, especially on the Minnesota side of the ball.
My impression of the Viking D is that the secondary gets decent coverage. Maybe the Eagle WRs will get lots of catches, but they're YAC will be limited. The Eagles should pound the Vikings front four with the running game, IMO. With Pinkston's bad shoulder, the Vikings will be able to effectively triple-team Owens.
The Eagles should pound the Vikings front four with the running game, IMO.
Funny, I was thinking the same of the Vikings' offense. Moss's ego perhaps would be wounded, but it might be best for the team. Maybe not, I mean, we are talking about Randy Moss. Point is, run defense, despite an overall good D team, is still the Eagles' (that's pronounced, "Ih-ggles" BTW) weak spot. Oh, the irony of seeing both teams pound it up the middle with their top-tier wideouts hung out to dry!
9. Ricky will be back this year. I have hope (and waiver priority in Fantasy Football).
Ricky Williams can't be back this year even if he wants to come back. He's facing a four game suspension, but since he filed retirement papers, he's out for the season according to league rules.
When and if he comes back, he still has the four game suspension to serve.
Are the Bengal's uniforms uglier than usual, or is it just me?
I know! I'm usually very accepting of new team uniforms. I was pleased with the uniform changes by the Broncos, Bucs, Bills, Falcons, Lions, Seahawks and all the others that have changed unis in recent years... but this just hurts to the eye. The "bengal stripes" on the sides look very cheap.
I kinda get the feeling that in a few years when people look back at highlight clips from this decade the Bengals, Bills and Falcons unis will look soooo bad tho. They look like recycled jerseys.
I know! I'm usually very accepting of new team uniforms. I was pleased with the uniform changes by the Broncos, Bucs, Bills, Falcons, Lions, Seahawks and all the others that have changed unis in recent years... but this just hurts to the eye. The "bengal stripes" on the sides look very cheap.
I kinda get the feeling that in a few years when people look back at highlight clips from this decade the Bengals, Bills and Falcons unis will look soooo bad tho. They look like recycled jerseys.
i have liked the falcons slowly getting back to their red jersey roots. that black-on-black bullcrap started back by glanville and deion was stupid-on-stupid. "what's you team primary color? black. secondary? black. um, tertiary? gray. but we do have some red pinstriping!"
personally, i sometimes long for the classic uniforms, with the big-ass block letter numbers, with no different fonts or drop shadows on the numbers and crap. no half-swooshes, no secondary logos. i personally blame jerry jones and his brief, assinine change of the cowboys classic jersey to have those huge stars on the shoulders. next you'll see them try to put the steelers logo on both sides of the helmet, add a black drop shadow to green bay's "G", and a dark metallic blue gradient to the bears jersey.
at least someone stopped carmen policy long ago when he wanted to do away with the san francisco's classic "SF" once montana and walsh were gone.
but hey, you know why they do it, right? because once you buy a jersey, you keep it until it changes. i mean, why would you need more than a couple, right? but you don't want to seem "uncool" by showing up to a game in last year's jersey. well, that's why some nba teams change their uniforms CONSTANTLY. you're either ballin' old-school, or up-to-date.
personally, i sometimes long for the classic uniforms, with the big-ass block letter numbers, with no different fonts or drop shadows on the numbers and crap. no half-swooshes, no secondary logos. i personally blame jerry jones and his brief, assinine change of the cowboys classic jersey to have those huge stars on the shoulders.
The Cowboys' home jersey is very traditional. White, couple of stripes. That's it. The (rarely used) away blue jersey is the one with stars on the sides. I like them. It's original they're the only team in the league with white home jerseys.
I don't mind uniform redesign. At times a change is in order. However, I think teams try too hard to make revolutionary designs and it just ends up looking very bad.
I think the Broncos, Lions, Bucs and Seahawks made great uniform upgrades. Here's why. The Broncos and Bucs threw the old design to the trash can and started from scratch. They even chose new colors. And that works, getting rid of the old and just coming up with something very different. You don't see any similarities between the old one and the new one. The Lions and Seahawks kept ties with the old unis, but changed them slightly just to make them look new and they kept it clean. Lions changed the hue on their blue and added a black outline to the lion on the helmet. Yet it looks so much better. Seahawks changed the color scheme yet it looks very clean.
But if you ask me, the Bengals just screwed it. The Falcons' jerseys have very agressive lines, doesn't look clean at all. Looks more like a superhero costume than a football uniform. Change Michael Vick's number 7 for a Superman logo and it looks fitting. The Bills and Bengals just kept the old helmets and made a collage out of their jerseys. Not very clean.
In general, I think clean, plain jerseys with stripes work better than "hey, let's keep the old helmet and add all kinds of crazy lines and different colored patches to the jersey" approach. But having different unis is fun.
Forget the jerseys, I'm still getting used to the "Evolution" helmets players started wearing 2-3 seasons ago. I first noticed Rice wearing one back then...He's switched back to the older helmets now I think. In fact it seems like there are fewer people using them on the whole this year.
Slightly off-topic (again!), but I remember watching a hockey game on TV one night against the Washington Capitals, and Doc Emrick, one of the great voices in sports, kept getting the players mixed up because he couldn't read the numbers on their jerseys. During one break in the action, he commented on how so much attention was paid to the colors and unique serif font on the backs of the Caps players, and how they were illegible to fans and the press. Said it drove him nuts. Illegible numbers and swooshes drive me nuts.
On the other hand, some of those third jersies they have in the NHL, particularly the Dallas Stars' third jersey with its big star points coming down the sleeve and down the sides, are quite nice. It's just when you get fussy with the unis when they're supposed to be seen from a fair distance is when you get in trouble. Then of course there are the fashion color schemes we got in the late 80's and 90's. And the team-name-as-collective-noun trend last decade. I could go on.
Uh, anyhoo, on topic... ...dontcha wish the Vikings helmets had real horns on them?
I hate when teams change uniforms. I think the worst change in the NFL is the Broncos. Their old uniforms were way cooler. I was very happy when both New York teams went back to their classic styles.
Vikings choked inside the 30 every time. They penalized themselves to death. And Andersen's kicking is fading quickly now. About time, I guess.
And, yes, that was not anywhere near a catch by Owens for that TD. Whatever happened to the "football action after the catch" thing, or for that matter, possession, or for that matter, having your knee down before the ball crosses the plane of the goal?
I don't get it. It seemed like Culpepper was actively trying to NOT throw to Moss. From the 4th quarter on, Moss was only up against man-to-man coverage and he still wasn't getting passed to...WTF?
And, yes, that was not anywhere near a catch by Owens for that TD. Whatever happened to the "football action after the catch" thing, or for that matter, possession, or for that matter, having your knee down before the ball crosses the plane of the goal?
There are two reasons to dispute the touchdown. The knee thing isn't one of them. I don't know why Al Michaels even brought it up. You can't be down by contact if you never had posession of the ball.
1) The ball looked to have touched the ground when Terrell fell into the end-zone.
2) The ball was still rattling around on his chest as he rolled out of bounds.
I don't get it. It seemed like Culpepper was actively trying to NOT throw to Moss. From the 4th quarter on, Moss was only up against man-to-man coverage and he still wasn't getting passed to...WTF?
Arrggghhhh!
I guess it was good that I went to bed at 10 pm Central, and missed more Culpepper-induced shrill insanity.
Just on the first 35 minutes alone, you could see he was having a bad night. On the 2 occasions they where within the 2 yards of the endzone, Culpepper had open receivers and did not throw the ball and instead tried to run it himself. Just crazy!
And Madden had it right too. Just give Moss a chance to make a play on a few downs with some deep deep routes.
The main reason that Tice didn't challenge the catch is that they didn't replay the non-catch in the stadium.
So, the Eagles got it together and quickly kicked the extra point and then there is no challenge.
Of course, the officiating staff blew it in the first place...
Yeah, but the Vikings coaches upstairs should have a freaking TV and tell Tice "hey buddy, you gotta challenge this." Total non-sense. The playcalling was so crappy. No bomb passes to Moss? Anyway, this week the Vikings will burn the depleted Chicago secondary. I'm cashing in on Culpepper and Moss this week.
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The Eagles have a far better defense. Expect Moss and Culpepper to have good nights, but not anywhere near last week. The Vikings have to run the ball a lot this game. The Vikes will not shut down Owens for sure -- who on that D can take on any of the Eagles' offensive position players? Eagles win on a defensive play. Don't expect a shootout, especially on the Minnesota side of the ball.
My impression of the Viking D is that the secondary gets decent coverage. Maybe the Eagle WRs will get lots of catches, but they're YAC will be limited. The Eagles should pound the Vikings front four with the running game, IMO. With Pinkston's bad shoulder, the Vikings will be able to effectively triple-team Owens.
Originally posted by Eugene
The Eagles should pound the Vikings front four with the running game, IMO.
Funny, I was thinking the same of the Vikings' offense. Moss's ego perhaps would be wounded, but it might be best for the team. Maybe not, I mean, we are talking about Randy Moss. Point is, run defense, despite an overall good D team, is still the Eagles' (that's pronounced, "Ih-ggles" BTW) weak spot. Oh, the irony of seeing both teams pound it up the middle with their top-tier wideouts hung out to dry!
Originally posted by Eugene
9. Ricky will be back this year. I have hope (and waiver priority in Fantasy Football).
Ricky Williams can't be back this year even if he wants to come back. He's facing a four game suspension, but since he filed retirement papers, he's out for the season according to league rules.
When and if he comes back, he still has the four game suspension to serve.
Originally posted by iPoster
Watching Miami/Cincy...
Are the Bengal's uniforms uglier than usual, or is it just me?
I know! I'm usually very accepting of new team uniforms. I was pleased with the uniform changes by the Broncos, Bucs, Bills, Falcons, Lions, Seahawks and all the others that have changed unis in recent years... but this just hurts to the eye. The "bengal stripes" on the sides look very cheap.
I kinda get the feeling that in a few years when people look back at highlight clips from this decade the Bengals, Bills and Falcons unis will look soooo bad tho. They look like recycled jerseys.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
I know! I'm usually very accepting of new team uniforms. I was pleased with the uniform changes by the Broncos, Bucs, Bills, Falcons, Lions, Seahawks and all the others that have changed unis in recent years... but this just hurts to the eye. The "bengal stripes" on the sides look very cheap.
I kinda get the feeling that in a few years when people look back at highlight clips from this decade the Bengals, Bills and Falcons unis will look soooo bad tho. They look like recycled jerseys.
i have liked the falcons slowly getting back to their red jersey roots. that black-on-black bullcrap started back by glanville and deion was stupid-on-stupid. "what's you team primary color? black. secondary? black. um, tertiary? gray. but we do have some red pinstriping!"
personally, i sometimes long for the classic uniforms, with the big-ass block letter numbers, with no different fonts or drop shadows on the numbers and crap. no half-swooshes, no secondary logos. i personally blame jerry jones and his brief, assinine change of the cowboys classic jersey to have those huge stars on the shoulders. next you'll see them try to put the steelers logo on both sides of the helmet, add a black drop shadow to green bay's "G", and a dark metallic blue gradient to the bears jersey.
at least someone stopped carmen policy long ago when he wanted to do away with the san francisco's classic "SF" once montana and walsh were gone.
but hey, you know why they do it, right? because once you buy a jersey, you keep it until it changes. i mean, why would you need more than a couple, right? but you don't want to seem "uncool" by showing up to a game in last year's jersey. well, that's why some nba teams change their uniforms CONSTANTLY. you're either ballin' old-school, or up-to-date.
Originally posted by rok
personally, i sometimes long for the classic uniforms, with the big-ass block letter numbers, with no different fonts or drop shadows on the numbers and crap. no half-swooshes, no secondary logos. i personally blame jerry jones and his brief, assinine change of the cowboys classic jersey to have those huge stars on the shoulders.
The Cowboys' home jersey is very traditional. White, couple of stripes. That's it. The (rarely used) away blue jersey is the one with stars on the sides. I like them. It's original they're the only team in the league with white home jerseys.
I don't mind uniform redesign. At times a change is in order. However, I think teams try too hard to make revolutionary designs and it just ends up looking very bad.
I think the Broncos, Lions, Bucs and Seahawks made great uniform upgrades. Here's why. The Broncos and Bucs threw the old design to the trash can and started from scratch. They even chose new colors. And that works, getting rid of the old and just coming up with something very different. You don't see any similarities between the old one and the new one. The Lions and Seahawks kept ties with the old unis, but changed them slightly just to make them look new and they kept it clean. Lions changed the hue on their blue and added a black outline to the lion on the helmet. Yet it looks so much better. Seahawks changed the color scheme yet it looks very clean.
But if you ask me, the Bengals just screwed it. The Falcons' jerseys have very agressive lines, doesn't look clean at all. Looks more like a superhero costume than a football uniform. Change Michael Vick's number 7 for a Superman logo and it looks fitting. The Bills and Bengals just kept the old helmets and made a collage out of their jerseys. Not very clean.
In general, I think clean, plain jerseys with stripes work better than "hey, let's keep the old helmet and add all kinds of crazy lines and different colored patches to the jersey" approach. But having different unis is fun.
Gosh I love football.
On the other hand, some of those third jersies they have in the NHL, particularly the Dallas Stars' third jersey with its big star points coming down the sleeve and down the sides, are quite nice. It's just when you get fussy with the unis when they're supposed to be seen from a fair distance is when you get in trouble. Then of course there are the fashion color schemes we got in the late 80's and 90's. And the team-name-as-collective-noun trend last decade. I could go on.
Uh, anyhoo, on topic... ...dontcha wish the Vikings helmets had real horns on them?
Minnesota was horrible inside the redzone and it is mostly Culpepper and terrible play calling.
Originally posted by THT
Arrggghhhhhh! Come on Culpepper!
Minnesota was horrible inside the redzone and it is mostly Culpepper and terrible play calling.
Fumblia! Fumbleruski!
My new least favorite team has to be the Eagles . . . . I'll never forgive them letting Owens get away with that none-catch!!
And, yes, that was not anywhere near a catch by Owens for that TD. Whatever happened to the "football action after the catch" thing, or for that matter, possession, or for that matter, having your knee down before the ball crosses the plane of the goal?
"COME'ON! LEAD US,DAUNTEEEE!!"
ROFL.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
And, yes, that was not anywhere near a catch by Owens for that TD. Whatever happened to the "football action after the catch" thing, or for that matter, possession, or for that matter, having your knee down before the ball crosses the plane of the goal?
There are two reasons to dispute the touchdown. The knee thing isn't one of them. I don't know why Al Michaels even brought it up. You can't be down by contact if you never had posession of the ball.
1) The ball looked to have touched the ground when Terrell fell into the end-zone.
2) The ball was still rattling around on his chest as he rolled out of bounds.
Originally posted by Eugene
I don't get it. It seemed like Culpepper was actively trying to NOT throw to Moss. From the 4th quarter on, Moss was only up against man-to-man coverage and he still wasn't getting passed to...WTF?
Arrggghhhh!
I guess it was good that I went to bed at 10 pm Central, and missed more Culpepper-induced shrill insanity.
Just on the first 35 minutes alone, you could see he was having a bad night. On the 2 occasions they where within the 2 yards of the endzone, Culpepper had open receivers and did not throw the ball and instead tried to run it himself. Just crazy!
And Madden had it right too. Just give Moss a chance to make a play on a few downs with some deep deep routes.
Originally posted by Eugene
There are two reasons to dispute the touchdown. The knee thing isn't one of them.
I thought the defender came down with him, hence he would have been down by contact before the goalline if he had possession anyway.
Originally posted by pfflam
Vikings should have won that game
My new least favorite team has to be the Eagles . . . . I'll never forgive them letting Owens get away with that none-catch!!
The main reason that Tice didn't challenge the catch is that they didn't replay the non-catch in the stadium.
So, the Eagles got it together and quickly kicked the extra point and then there is no challenge.
Of course, the officiating staff blew it in the first place...
Originally posted by Cake
The main reason that Tice didn't challenge the catch is that they didn't replay the non-catch in the stadium.
So, the Eagles got it together and quickly kicked the extra point and then there is no challenge.
Of course, the officiating staff blew it in the first place...
Yeah, but the Vikings coaches upstairs should have a freaking TV and tell Tice "hey buddy, you gotta challenge this." Total non-sense. The playcalling was so crappy. No bomb passes to Moss? Anyway, this week the Vikings will burn the depleted Chicago secondary. I'm cashing in on Culpepper and Moss this week.