lazorbeak

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="milamber" data-cite="milamber" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The other issue is the luke-warm reaction some of the veterans got on Old School Raw. Now imagine if Sting showed up at non-smarky arenas full of kids who know jack about WCW. The marketing team would have to work overtime making sure everyone knows what a big deal Sting is. Again, if they waited until WM31 and planned ahead, they could do something interesting with Sting, but I'd hate to see them shoehorn him into WM30 and drop the ball.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, that was my bigger roadblock to a Sting comeback in 2-3 months. An entire generation of WWE fans aren't particularly familiar with Sting. He hasn't been part of a national promotion since 2001, 13 years ago, and while I'm sure some young wrestling fans know who he is, it would take some build to get a 50 year old guy over again with a younger audience. And is he really worth putting in the time to do that?</p><p> </p><p> Also, I agree with everybody else that WWE in general needs to stop being such a nostalgia act. I get why Rock and Brock show up to these things, but WWE does such a poor job of giving new guys "Wrestlemania moments." Look back to two years ago: The Rock beats Cena, as a non-wrestler from the past beats WWE's top guy. Then, you've got Undertaker vs Triple H again, with both of them on part-time schedules and Triple H soon to retire (and a combined age of 88). Both these matches go 30 minutes, so Sheamus/Bryan goes 18 seconds. And as if that weren't enough, Randy Orton is putting over Kane, a 44 year old who was already limited in the ring, and Cody Rhodes is putting over the Big Show, a 39 year old. The only case of a young guy beating an old timer on the entire show was Punk going over Jericho, in a match and feud that was pretty quickly forgotten about. I know it makes Wrestlemania seem special when you only see these guys once a year, but as a side-effect it makes your 365 day roster look like the B-team.</p>

I would say Sting is washed up and I don't care to see him in WWE, except that Goldust has proven what a huge difference being motivated and not being in a horribly run company has on veterans. I'm not sure how interested WWE is at this point, though. After the live crowd's response to Jake, I'm not sure they'd get much of a reaction out of Sting unless they built him up somehow for a couple months. I have to say, this year is interesting as far as the Wrestlemania build-up, because everything's in the air right now. Hopefully just having one belt to go after will help WWE re-focus on the Royal Rumble being important again, after a few snooze-worthy years of Sheamus, Del Rio, and Cena's wins. It actually does feel pretty wide-open. I could see Bryan, Punk, or Lesnar winning, but it could also be something out of left field like Batista. There's not really a sure fire winner the way it feels pretty sure-fire that Cena is winning his belt(s) back before Wrestlemania.

This looks really, really cool and I definitely hope it works out for WWE. I'm definitely a day one subscriber. The only thing is this puts more pressure on WWE to actually make their shows better. Right now there's about two, maybe 3 watchable hours of WWE programming a week, spread out over 7 hours. And that's including all of NXT as "watchable," because it's consistently WWE's best show.

I too still have a working N64. Mine's still plugged in, attached to the crappiest TV I have (playing N64 on a flatscreen is even worse). I actually went back and played Goldeneye on 00 Agent not too long ago and was amazed at how incredibly easy it was. Plus I remembered things about the levels that my brain probably should have dedicated to something else by now.

Yeah, I'm sure that's her choice, and not, you know, the quality of the people she's wrestling or the agent telling her to keep the match under 3 minutes. Nope, she's probably just lazy and bad at wrestling.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm all for them moving forward with Magnus as their champion which btw Magnus is the first British World Champion in modern pro wrestling. Its just sad that TNA after all of these years and after all of these people in charge SOMEONE in that company (at this point it has to be Dixie) is still in favor of these stupid ways of trying to put their top talent over.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Is he really though? I mean, Ireland is part of the British Isles, but we'll assume they're discounting Sheamus. Nigel won the ROH title, but I guess that doesn't count but the TNA belt does, since TNA is a slightly bigger company (Nigel did defend internationally, too)? Chris Adams also won the WCWA world heavyweight title from Rick Rude in 1986 in front of eleven thousand people, but I guess that doesn't count either.</p><p> </p><p> Anyway I'm morbidly curious where all of this TNA stuff is going. I like ECIII, and I like the idea of Magnus being built as a homegrown guy, but TNA is notoriously bad at making their "homegrown" guys look important after they drop the world belt. I mean, Exhibit A is Joe, Exhibit Z is Bobby Roode. Still on the roster, but just kind of there.</p>

NXT is also meant to be training guys to be on the main roster, so being able to fit your stuff into a good, four minute match is a more useful skill for most midcarders than just having great matches. Guys like Cesaro who should be in 15 minute matches in the next year or so can benefit from working long, but 85% of the roster are better off learning how to make a "music plays, then you get rolled up" finish look convincing.

I just now got around to beating Tomb Raider, one of my pick-ups from a previous Steam sale. It's pretty good, when it's not too busy being a super-serious Uncharted clone. The actual "game" part was a lot of fun, even if the combat gets a bit silly by the end. Has the new Batman game gotten a daily deal yet? That's one I was thinking of picking up if it gets in the $20-25 range.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>HA! Aj Styles is a star? I'm surprised Yahoo lets random idiots write articles for them. Hunico is more over than AJ Styles. Atleast in the fact that if he debuted at the Royal Rumble he would get next to no reaction from the live audience. Not too mention there is zero chance he doesn't go through developmental and there is zero chance they are signing a 36 year old indy worker only to send him to developmental. Most guys spend around a year or two in developmental from Punk, to Cesero, to The Shield, to Daniel Bryan. He'll resign with TNA before the end of the year once he too realizes that he has nowhere else to go. Unless he wants to wrestle in bingo halls for a few hundred bucks a night working a break neck schedule with a wife and three kids at home. I'm surprised Christopher Daniels didn't pull this guy aside and fill him in on how even if TNA low balls him its better than working the indies.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, I mean WWE's ring is bigger and different than what AJ's worked with his career to this point; there's no way he wouldn't need at least 6 months of developmental. I mean, Mistico had 3 months of transition between signing and live debut, and we all saw how amazingly that went for him (he was also 28). I do think if he debuted in the Southeast, he'd get a pretty major opening pop, through a combination of internet buzz, fans that have seen him, and him being a hometown boy, but the fact is he just wouldn't be ready to work right away, and he's already pretty old. WWE also would make him adjust his style, and you're left with a guy who's only a slight improvement on R-Truth in the ring, but without a hit rap song.</p><p> </p><p> At least for now though, the "few hundred bucks at bingo halls" is a pretty gross exaggeration. Japan and the Indies see him as a "draw" whether he is or not, so he'll have a pretty hefty asking price for this go-round on the indies. I mean I think the best case outcome is that 10-12 months from now when he can't get that same rate he was getting before, he goes back to TNA and is a returning legend. Of course, that only works if TNA still exists in some form.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Russelrules44" data-cite="Russelrules44" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What I hope for next year's WWE Royal Rumble<p> </p><p> BTW, Bold means winner</p><p> </p><p> Main Event</p><p> John Cena vs <strong>Randy Orton</strong> in a Special Ref Match (Hulk Hogan anyone?) for the title</p><p> </p><p> Uppercard</p><p> The Royal Rumble: Of course, The winner, <strong>Daniel Bryan</strong></p><p> </p><p> <strong>Big E Langston</strong> vs Ryback for the IC title</p><p> </p><p> The Rhodes vs <strong>The Real Americans</strong> vs The Morphin' Truth for the Tag Team Titles</p><p> </p><p> Mid Card</p><p> <strong>AJ Lee</strong> vs Natalya vs Tamina for the Divas Title</p><p> </p><p> <strong>CM Punk</strong> vs The Shield</p><p> </p><p> Filler</p><p> <strong>Brodus Clay</strong> vs Tensai</p><p> </p><p> Pre Show:<strong> Los Matadores</strong> vs 3MB for the 1,000,000th time</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Like it?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't think I like any RR card with 7 matches. </p><p> </p><p> I think Cena/Bryan probably should be the match they should be building towards with Bryan as the challenger at WM. It's basically been in motion for over six months, it'll result in a great match, and the smark Wrestlemania live fans won't crap on it the way they would Cena vs. any heel on the roster. The only other option would be Cena vs. Punk. Either way, the story should be "Cena is the unwitting preferred champ of the authority," since kayfabe (and real life) he's the kind of champ WWE wants. He doesn't have to actually turn, and he can give Triple H an AA or whatever on the go-home show. </p><p> </p><p> With that in mind, your card ends up being:</p><p> </p><p> Royal Rumble: <strong>Bryan</strong> wins, eliminating Punk (or Big Show). Roman Reigns gets the most eliminations. Sheamus returns (is he coming back anytime soon?). We also get a returning midcard "legend" like Billy Gunn that'll get way too big a pop when their music plays. Also at least one surprise full-time return (I hope), because the midcard could stand to be strengthened with some new midcard guys to step into that RVD or Jericho role. </p><p> </p><p> <strong>Cena </strong>vs. Orton: Cena wins. If WWE was smart, they would make February's PPV Orton/Bryan for Bryan's shot, instead of just doing Cena/Orton take 3. Of course, they probably aren't that smart.</p><p> </p><p> Divas match: some kind of multi-woman deal including <strong>AJ</strong>, Natalya, and at least Brie Bella (between title match and rumble). AJ wins through some sort of babyface miscommunication/idiocy.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>The Shield</strong> vs. Cody and Goldust- The Shield is represented by Ambrose and Rollins, so Reigns can "focus" on Royal Rumble match. The Shield win the belts back.</p><p> </p><p> <strong>Punk </strong>vs. someone. Just to put him on the card since you need a match to replace their old WH midcard match. Let's say... Kane, leading to some kind of Punk/Triple H WM match (with Austin as the ref, kayfabe hating both guys). Did Punk ever get his win back way back in the Summer of Punk? Or did he just bridge over to beating up Triple H's gimpy friends?</p>

<p>That blog lost me when it said Triple H was a "more than capable" wrestler. He was just "capable" the last two or three years of his active career, and he's not in shape. I'd much rather see Bryan/Cena II or Punk/Cena take whatever than Bryan/HHH. You wouldn't even have to turn Cena, since the WM crowd will all be fans who hate Cena anyway.</p><p> </p><p> (Bryan Cena III if we count their classic Velocity match).</p>

<p>Honestly this is great for Daniel Bryan. He was sort of the guy left holding the bag when WWE's awful storytelling refused to put him over for 3 months, so it's nice to see that things are even worse when WWE circles the wagons and teases Randy Orton vs John Cena take infinity. </p><p> </p><p> I just looked it up on Cagematch, Orton's record vs. Cena for his career (including house shows)? 15-169-5. Narrowing it down to just non-house show 1 vs. 1 matches, Orton is a respectable 9-16-2. Which I guess isn't that much overexposure, but it's nice to see the crowd isn't interested in guys with legitimate beef just being pushed aside while Cena explains why people shout "yes" in a way that doesn't involve Daniel Bryan.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TheWrestlingMan" data-cite="TheWrestlingMan" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>JTG has been in WWE for 6 or 7 years and you see how much success he has....</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> And who could forget JTG's two playboy covers, numerous WWE PPV posters, etc. while working as a non-wrestler. Wait, what are we comparing apples to again?</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Russelrules44" data-cite="Russelrules44" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I actully have 2 things to say.<p> </p><p> Bret Hart vs Chris Benoit for the World Title- This damn sure better be on it for what it's worth.</p><p> </p><p> Goldberg vs Hulk Hogan for the World Title- While this damn sure wasn't a technical classic, It did mark a changing of the tides in WCW.</p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Despite how much sense it would have made, Hulk Hogan and Goldberg never wrestled on PPV, ever. So I doubt that'll be on there. Their one all-time match is already on the Best of Nitro vol 1. There's also virtually no chance of that other match, for obvious reasons. </p><p> </p><p> The real question is, how many Dean Malenko matches are they going to sneak into the WCW PPV set? I mean he had amazing matches with Rey, Dragon, Eddie, Jericho, and basically the rest of the roster, but could never carry a "Best of Dean Malenko" DVD.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Smasher1311" data-cite="Smasher1311" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Agreed. A shame that she didn't had that much success in the WWE...</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You're kidding, right? I mean she was only in the company for 8 years.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Man does that AFC playoff picture look pitiful. Meanwhile The East and the North in the NFC are still a jump ball.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, someone must make it in the AFC! The Jets with their complete inability to make plays, the Chargers with their laughably bad D, the Dolphins, with their infamous o-line, etc. I think Pittsburgh, who still is a bad football team, might have the inside track. A team that lost to the Vikings and let the Patriots score on them like it was 2006.</p><p> </p><p> Also, I really want to see somebody just crush the Giants playoff chances. I just can't stand this team and I'm so sick of them sneaking into playoff spots.</p>

There's actually two sets of (multiple) sliders that effect reversals. There's also an option where you can basically turn off any damage done by reversal animations. That's in addition to customizing how much damage things like finishers do. The griping about the roster is pretty old hat. Yes, it's kind of a shame that a Bray Wyatt isn't there, but that's why they've got all these fun to play legends. Because they recognized they just can't take the time to code in a guy unless they know ahead of time that he'll be there and a big deal-it's been an issue since forever and adding more unlockables is their best solution. I'll take Curt Hennig over Curtis Axel anyway. Some of the missing characters will be added in DLC, and it's really easy to find decent CAWS of pretty much whoever you're looking for if the lack of Curtis Axel is that appalling. Yes, it's the latest entry in a sports franchise, so it's not always the most innovative thing, but it's fun, customizable, and has much better online support than last year's. I don't play much online but THQ's online set-up had a 50/50 chance of crashing just looking at created content.

<p>Interesting week, and really validates what I've been saying. I knew the Panthers were better than the 7 point spread in San Francisco, but they surprised me by winning outright. Beating all those bad teams by double digits carried over into a close win on the road. The Bengals and Colts showed why even though they're likely playoff teams, nobody trusts them, as injuries and consistency issues have caused both teams to look great against good teams, but pretty bad against mediocre teams. The Colts lost at home to Miami in week 2, and just got blown out by a Rams team that's in 4th in the NFC West. The Colts "who have they beaten" list is pretty impressive, but the "who have they lost to" list is pretty sad. Fortunately the Colts play in one of the worst divisions in football, and still have games against the Locker-less Titans, the Jaguars, and the Texans.</p><p> </p><p> And Philadelphia might be a playoff team if Foles plays out the rest of the year. They've scored 76 points in their past two games with Foles vs. 10 in the two games before that where Matt Barkley was under center.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="milamber" data-cite="milamber" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> - Ohno lost to Harper in a good big man match. I can understand them releasing a guy who's probably on a huge wage with no place on the main roster. Shame, though.</p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I doubt Ohno was on a "huge wage," as most top indy guys seem to actually take a pay cut to sign a developmental deal with the expectation of getting on the main roster and eventually making good money. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't part of the release. He's been with the company for what, 18 months? If they didn't at least have a timetable for bringing him up, and wanted him to sign a new developmental contract and/or take a pay cut, this story makes more sense. It still doesn't make much sense considering Punk and Bryan's ascension and the fact that Hero looks way more like a star than D-Bry. I mean how can you not find a place for a 6'4" guy who can work multiple styles and connect with the crowd?</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Smasher1311" data-cite="Smasher1311" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Various sources are reporting that The Miz has turned heel at a WWE Belfast Live Show...<p> </p><p> - The Miz cut a heel promo before losing to Kofi Kingston at Wednesday's WWE live event in Belfast. Miz talked about how he has been beaten up by everyone from Kane to The Wyatt Family and the fans always cheer for who is beating him up. Here is video: </p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vd1SxBjpwy4" rel="external nofollow">Video</a></p><p> </p><p> ^^ From NoDQ.com.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> About time. He's been such an awful version of babyface Chris Jericho for the longest time, and a portion of the crowd is pretty much going to hate him no matter what because of his MTV background and his punch-able face.</p>

Good to see I'm not the only one who's been paying attention this season. Nice to see you're just changing the goal-posts now. As pointed out below, they've actually played some pretty good defenses and blown them out. I'm glad you're not bothered by being completely statistically incorrect. People very rarely read box scores wrong. No, it isn't. I already gave the stats to you as to why one statement is supported by data, and one isn't. "Who have they beaten" is an irrelevant question. Who has Denver beaten? (Answer: The Cowboys.) And yet they're a contender. You don't need to beat elite teams on the road to be a Super Bowl contender. It's like you haven't been reading. I already explained the massive difference in Rodgers and Brady's performance, right? I'm pretty sure I did. Yes, Green Bay wasn't a "lock," but if they continued playing like they had been, yes, they were one of the four-five teams with a legitimate shot at the Super Bowl. I'm not sure how that's not getting through to you. ........I said they were Super Bowl contenders BEFORE the injury. That was the point I made in my original post. They were completely controlling games and coasting to easy victories. Your statements that New Orleans or Seattle was "miles ahead" just isn't true, since those teams struggled to pick up wins against poor teams. And more "not backed up by data" statements: they were winning their division, and as far as the "top three teams," who cares? As mentioned their offense actually was top three, and as pointed out in my last post, a Baltimore Ravens team was worse last year before winning the Super Bowl. Anyway, that's my last word on the subject. Just to recap: it's not unusual for good teams to lose to other good teams on the road. Rodgers continues to be an elite QB, and hopefully will continue to be after he comes back. Arguing "who have they beaten" is a silly question in the NFL, because of parity and scheduling. Even "bad" teams can compete with a good team: Miami nearly beating New England, Tampa Bay scaring Seattle, etc., so when a good team consistently beats bad teams by double digits, that is a good sign. Even good teams have problems: Seattle's offensive line, San Fran's lack of receivers, the Saints defense, etc. That's why every year there's usually at least 3-4 teams with a real chance of winning the Super Bowl every year. The New York Giants and Baltimore Ravens were not the best team in the league the seasons they won (either time), and yet they each have two championships in the past decade. Green Bay didn't even win their division the year they won the Super Bowl. That year, they lost five games on the road and one at home. They then won three games in a row on the road, including a game against two teams that had already beaten them: the Bears and the Falcons. But yeah, acting like they would have even a slim chance of doing that in a league where the top team struggles to beat Tampa Bay at home is just as nonsensical as saying a team is irrelevant.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The Packers as Super Bowl contenders?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes? As mentioned, they were crushing teams at home and winning on the road. That's what good teams do to get home field advantage. And they had enough offensive firepower to compete even in tough games. </p><p> </p><p> Football teams rarely get to set their own schedules, so I'm not sure why you're hung up on it. Also, the Packers play 5 more teams with losing schedules. Also, way to introduce data that directly contradicts their own claims: they beat Detroit handily, and Detroit's a good team. So the Packers are 1-3 (1-2 if you don't count the Bears game, as my point is they <em>were </em>a contender) against .500 and above teams, with two road losses. That's not unusual. 2-2 would've been even less unusual, but I guess we'll never know, since Seneca Wallace wasn't able to pick apart the Bears defense the way Rodgers likely would have.</p><p> </p><p> Look at New England. You imply they're significantly better at 7-2, but they've played in a whopping 4 games against .500 teams, and that's only because they lost to a bad Jets team to help that team get over .500 (if they beat the Jets, their record against good teams drops to 1-1). They also looked embarrassingly poor at Cincinnati, and needed a lot of luck to get past New Orleans. They've also had close games against several bad teams, including the Falcons, Bills, and Dolphins. They won two games at home against good teams, and lost two games on the road against good teams. And guess what? They're a Super Bowl contender too.</p><p> </p><p> You bizarrely claim that the Saints are "miles" ahead of the Packers, but their record in games against teams over .500 so far? 1-2. And, as I already mentioned, they have less blowout wins, despite playing an even softer schedule. Their defense has certainly improved from "league worst" levels, but they struggled against a Jets team that isn't very good.</p><p> </p><p> Or how about the Broncos? They're a trendy Super Bowl pick and have been all year, and their record against above .500 teams is.... 1-1. One home win, one road loss. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>My point though is that you can't be a Super Bowl contender and lose to every team you play with a winning record.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They played two elite teams on the road and lost. Outside of the Bears game, they hadn't lost a game they should've won all year, and, as mentioned, they were completely dismantling their competition week after week. Something the Seahawks <em>don't </em>do. As I already mentioned, their 13 point + margin of victories put them in elite company, while the 1 loss Seahawks have to scrap out games against teams like the Rams and Texans.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>As for Rogers only showing a decline because he lost his receivers. Remember Tom Brady up until oh I don't know last week? He lost his receivers and they still only got two losses on the year.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Right, but this was in response to your notion that Rodgers was somehow worse this year. Brady had been <span style="text-decoration:underline;">hugely</span> worse statistically this season, excepting one game, against an extremely bad defense. Rodgers has only declined in terms of total output, not effectiveness (he's still top 5 in basically every QB stat that matters), and, as mentioned, that's because the Packers were regularly racking up big leads and coasting; they don't need him to throw for 400 yards and 5 touchdowns, but that doesn't mean he suddenly can't. Brady was being forced to scrap out ugly wins while leaning on defense, the running game, and one of the best coaches in history, and as a result, he's looked noticeably worse. Rodgers lack of receivers had taken him out of the MVP conversation, while Brady's lack of receivers had him ranked lower than Chad Henne in completion percentage.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'm sure you'll have some reason on why The Pack can be considered Super Bowl contenders even though they aren't even the leaders in their division (their tied), they haven't beaten a team with a winning record all year and as you pointed out they lost their receiving corps pretty ealry on in the season. They got embarrassed against the Niners and haven't looked like a contender ever since.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> ....I already gave the reasons? Again, that's <em>before </em>the Rodgers injury. They were winning their division, a win over the Bears would've given them the inside track on a bye, and they were statistically playing like the third or fourth best team in football over a 5 week stretch. I think they could still be dangerous if they do decently without Rodgers, because his injury will force the defense to not rely on him as much as they did in their 15-1 season, where they weren't able to step up their level of play against top teams. If the Packers defense improves and they get Rodgers back, it's pretty crazy to write off the Packers. I mean, they did win a Super Bowl three years ago as a Wild Card based on their offense, and their offense this year was #3 in points and #2 in yards before Rodgers went down.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Especially not Super Bowl contenders when you see that New Orleons, Seattle and San Fran all are in the NFC and are look hundreds of miles better than The Pack have all season.They have a great shot to make the playoffs if he gets back with only Dallas, Chicago and Detroit left with winning records and all of those teams are only one game over five hundred as of right now so who knows what they look like by then. But they aren't beating the big three in the division.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> As mentioned, the Saints are a slightly worse version of a (healthy) Packers team, and the Seahawks and 49ers have weaknesses, although one or the other is the favorite right now. And again, I'm not arguing the Packers are a lock or anything like that, just that this notion of their irrelevance or Aaron Rodgers "decline" is completely not supported by pretty much any data this season. They had a top 3 offense and an improved defense. Before that injury, they were one of a handful of teams with a legit shot to win the Super Bowl. I mean the Ravens obviously weren't the best team in the league last year, and they won it.</p><p> </p><p> Just for fun, the 2012 Ravens record at this point last year? 7-2. Their record against above .500 teams? 1-1. They won at home by 1 against New England, and lost by 30 on the road against Houston. Their other loss came on the road against a 4-win Eagles team, as they spent the entire first half of the season squeaking by bad teams. Then they got hot, got lucky (they should not have beaten Denver), and won a Super Bowl.</p><p> </p><p> It's almost like the data you used doesn't prove the thing you intended to prove!</p><p> </p><p> But seriously, my biggest issue with your statement was the idea that the Packers were "irrelevant," or the laughable notion that somehow the Cowboys are better than them. A Cowboys team that has only beaten their own division teams, the Rams, and the Vikings (in a dramatic comeback), and has huge issues on both sides of the ball. Dallas record against teams .500 or better? 0-4. Of course, they're a lot more likely to get blown out in a divisional game than to play in the Super Bowl. And that's assuming they don't end up choking and giving away the division title for what seems like the third or fourth time in recent history.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Its for the best anyway. The Packers went from being THE team in the NFC to at the very best being the fourth best team in the NFC behind New Orleons, Seattle and San Francisco and honestly they are maybe lower than that depending on how teams like Detroit and Dallas are playing. Not too mention that Atlanta is one of the best teams in the league when they aren't minus two of the top ten wide recievers in the league and a running back. So yeah the Packers sit anywhere between five and eight in terms of best team in the lague. <p> </p><p> Rogers went from being the best QB in the NFC to again somewhere in the lower top five. Sadly I see the Pack declining in the coming years. </p><p> </p><p> Really though the NFC is irrelevant this year outside of the Saints, Seahawks and Niners everybody else is just playing to lose in the playoffs.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Really confused by pretty much all of this. Have you just not seen a Packers game all year? Until their perennial MVP-candidate went down, they were a legit super bowl contender, and you're saying Atlanta and Dallas are better than them? That's pretty far out there.</p><p> </p><p> The idea of Rodgers "decline" is similarly pretty out there. He's posting top 5 across the board stats, but there's only two reasons he hasn't put up the completely ridiculous numbers of the last two years: one, his receiving corps has been hit with a ton of injuries, and second and most importantly, his team's running game and defense have improved to the point that he doesn't have to put up big second half stats. Of the Packers 5 wins, 4 were by 13 points or more. Only the 49ers in the NFC have consistently dominated both sides of the ball. The Seahawks and Saints each have 3 wins by that margin, for reference. Part of the reason the Packers lost on Monday is their run defense hasn't been tested in about six weeks, since they're used to sitting on two touchdown leads.</p><p> </p><p> I mean yes, I'd put Seattle and San Francisco as my #1 and #2 in the NFC in terms of power rankings right now, but neither team is so strong that they've got a Super Bowl appearance locked up. Neither has a particularly good offense. The Saints and Packers both have similar defensive issues, but the Packers also have the benefit of having a running back they trust, so they don't need to rely on 50 pass plays every game. The only place the Saints are head-and-shoulders better is Jimmy Graham. The Saints also play a brutal second half schedule, with games against Seattle and San Fran, and two games against a rejuvenated Panthers team.</p><p> </p><p> The Cowboys would be great... if the NFL was played 7 on 7. Unfortunately, they have at least 4 scrubs in the game on both sides of the ball at all times to offset the ludicrous amounts they pay their skill players. They needed a dramatic comeback to beat the Minnesota Vikings at home, a team with no defense and a carousel of poor QBs. Again, for comparison, Green Bay beat the Vikings at home by 13, and that's including giving up a kickoff return and 14 garbage time points. Minnesota needed a special teams touchdown to be down 21 in the 4th quarter, and was beating Dallas in Dallas with 5 minutes left.</p><p> </p><p> But yeah, pretty strongly disagree that the Packers don't have a shot, assuming they can get Rodgers back in a few weeks. With the right breaks, Seattle, San Fran, New Orleans, Green Bay, and even Carolina could conceivably make a Super Bowl run. It's actually pretty wide-open, because all of those teams have pretty significant flaws.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="D-Lyrium" data-cite="D-Lyrium" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Yeah, over here winning away is usually considered a slight upset between the midtable teams. The top teams will expect to win anywhere (although even Man City are struggling away this season despite some 6/7 goal home wins and Chelsea just lost in Newcastle) and the bottom teams are usually going to lose anywhere, but sometimes lesser teams like Hull and West Brom (who are now a solid team but used to be up and down the divisions like a yo-yo) have good home records. Even in the lower leagues there are some stadia that are considered 'fortresses' because of how hard it is to beat teams there even though the same team can't buy a win away.<p> </p><p> I noticed that the Vikings' only win this season was away at Pittsburgh.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> That game was played in London, so it wasn't really a home game for the Steelers, either.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="D-Lyrium" data-cite="D-Lyrium" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have a friend coming over at the weekend to watch Broncos/Chargers (she wants to see a game and it's the only one on ¬_¬). One of the things she's confused about is why 'nobody ever seems to be playing teams in their own league' (despite the fact that, ironically, that's happening this time).<p> </p><p> So er... I'm gonna post how I *think* the NFL schedule works. Lets see how well I do.</p><p> </p><p> - You play each of the teams in your own division home and away every year. So 6 games.</p><p> - Each division is paired with another division from that conference, and one from the other conference, on a four year cycle (so once every four years you'll play the members of each conference that isn't yours). Three years for your own conference obviously as one of those divisions is yours. You play all four teams from those two divisions once. So another 8 games.</p><p> - Finally, you play the team placed in the same position you were last year in the two divisions of your own conference you haven't played anyone from yet.</p><p> </p><p> So the Chargers, for instance, are in AFC West. So they'll play the Chiefs, Broncos and Raiders home and away.</p><p> </p><p> They're paired with AFC South this year, so they'll play the Colts, Texans, Titans and Jaguars, but only once.</p><p> </p><p> Their inter-conference pairing is NFC East, so they'll play the Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins and Giants, but again only once.</p><p> </p><p> Then because they've played teams from the AFC South, and they finished second last season in AFC West, they also play one game against the 2nd placed teams from AFC East and North (Dolphins and Bengals).</p><p> </p><p> I think that's right... the only thing I'm confused about is, is there any pattern to who is home and who is away for the teams you only play once? For instance, the Chargers have the Bengals at home and the Dolphins away. Is that just because that's how the cookie crumbled or is there something that decides that? It looks like you play half the matches at home and half away still, but what decides which teams you play at home? Is it just how the schedule looks? Like, if say Miami Heat are at home that week, the Dolphins might have to play away due to traffic and stuff (I have no idea where their two stadiums are geographically, just an example).</p><p> </p><p> Also, is home advantage such a big deal in NFL as it is in football over here?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes, that's right. I think it's just one of the league's mysteries as to why a team plays at home vs. away. The league does that such that there's always 8 games at home and away. They also try to schedule it so that west coast teams are given late afternoon (4 PM Eastern Time) home games where possible. They also deal with the national television deals for the Sunday night and Monday night games, which are usually given to rivalries or teams that were good the previous season (this week's two games were a divisional game between two playoff teams in the Colts and the Texans, and a rivalry game between the Packers and Bears). The league has also been sacrificing the occasional home game for east coast teams (usually those that have attendance issues anyway) in order to play the game in London.</p><p> </p><p> And yes, home field advantage is a pretty big deal. I crunched the numbers before this week's games and saw that the home team this year was winning about 61% of the time this year, which is above the average for the past 45 years, which is around 57% (still not as high as soccer/football, but higher than baseball). If you take out two outliers on either side (the winless Jaguars and Bucs, and the unstoppable at home Packers and Broncos), the percentage jumps all the way up to around 65% this year. You're also far more likely to see blow-outs in favor of the home team. It's far less likely for a team to go into an opposing stadium and thoroughly beat a team, unless that team is embarrassingly bad the way the Jaguars and Bucs have been. Which is why it's so bizarre that the Eagles are winless at home and just won by 29 on the road.</p>