I actually got Cribbs over Hester right (for a swing of less than .3 points, but hey, every little bit helps) and the Bears Defense gave me a huge boost as well. Hopefully my team can overcome Schaub's bad day.

Edit: And Ochocinco has yet to perform this year outside of week 1. I'm seriously thinking about trying to trade him or something for another player. But I feel like he will break out soon. I don't know what to do with him

Grettin

42381 Posts

October 10 2010 20:31 GMT

#1426

P. Manning didn't have that good day today. Glad Colts won tho.

Souma

2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts

October 10 2010 20:32 GMT

#1427

Chargers Special Teams strikes again... except on the kicking side of things this time.

freddergeier

Germany140 Posts

October 10 2010 20:42 GMT

#1428

Sudden Death for OT looks shitty for football in my opinion! GG Redskins

Ace

United States16096 Posts

October 10 2010 20:45 GMT

#1429

god damn does Philip Rivers have to do EVERYTHING in San Diego?

SweeTLemonS[TPR]

11739 Posts

October 10 2010 21:02 GMT

#1430

On October 11 2010 04:16 zer0das wrote:
Because Jamaal Charles has talent, Thomas Jones kind of does, but not anywhere near what Charles has. 2.4 yards a carry vs 6.3... it's not exactly rocket science who you should roll with...

Colts run defense is doing surprisingly well, that being said. At least against Jones.

You have your numbers backwards. TJ is averaging 4.2 a carry.

http://www.nfl.com/players/thomasjones/profile?id=JON755755

Charles is averaging 7.0 right now, so your point still kinda stands (unless they feel like TJ is wearing teams down for Charles), but it's no where near what you made it out to be.

zer0das

United States8519 Posts

October 10 2010 21:05 GMT

#1431

Uh no... Jamaal Charles averaged ~6 ypc today, Thomas Jones was 2.4. For the season it's 7.0 ypc vs 4.2 ypc. Not even close.

Qatol

United States3165 Posts

October 10 2010 21:06 GMT

#1432

On October 11 2010 05:42 freddergeier wrote:
Sudden Death for OT looks shitty for football in my opinion! GG Redskins

Why would it have mattered for that game? The Packers got the ball first. Plus, both teams had multiple chances to put points on the board. The Redskins just managed to do so first.

NonY

8751 Posts

October 10 2010 21:15 GMT

#1433

On October 11 2010 06:06 Qatol wrote:

Show nested quote +

Why would it have mattered for that game? The Packers got the ball first. Plus, both teams had multiple chances to put points on the board. The Redskins just managed to do so first.

What do you mean why would it have mattered for that game? A bad rule doesn't have to have disastrous results every time it comes into play for people to see that it's a bad rule. Anyway, how could it have not mattered for that game? The nature of OT affects the plays being called so it inevitably affects the game. Beyond that, even though the Packers may go scoreless for two possessions that does not indicate an inability to score. If OT was simply extended time, anything could happen in the time between the first points in OT and the end of OT.