NFL 2011 Conference Championship Round

ESPN.com doesn't much seem to like the Ravens' chances.

Peyton Manning to retire, as per...Rob Lowe. Martin Sheen and Allison Janney could not be reached for comment.

Edit: And like Chris Mort-is-wrong trying to stick to his guns, Rob Lowe continues to insist that he's credible about the Manning-to-retire report. Dude, Jimmy Smits is more credible and he starred in the Star Wars prequels. [b]WITH JAR-JAR BINKS![/b]

I don't care how good the Ravens defense is, the Patriots will score at least 21 points. That means Baltimore has a chance if Flacco is on that day. If Flacco is not on, no chance.

49ers and Ginats is just going to be a good game. (Hopefully). I don't mind either team going to the SuperBowl because I think either team would have a great chance against NE.

karmajay wrote:

I don't care how good the Ravens defense is, the Patriots will score at least 21 points. That means Baltimore has a chance if Flacco is on that day. If Flacco is not on, no chance.

I think it generally comes down to this: Good defense, bad Flacco. Bad defense, good Flacco.

Ravens at Patriots - This one fascinates me: crappy D vs. underpowered offense and stout, physical defense vs prolific offense. You don't tend to get such strength-on-strength and weakness-on-weakness games in the playoffs. I just don't see how the Ravens can keep up with the Patsies, though.
Giants at 49ers - I still don't believe in the Giants. They are hot now, but I also remember they went 9-7 in the regular season. Eli is a very good QB who still likes to throw one the other way at the worst times. It will be a close game, I can see it going either way, but in the end, I think 49ers bring a little more to the table.

tboon wrote:

Giants at 49ers - I still don't believe in the Giants. They are hot now, but I also remember they went 9-7 in the regular season. Eli is a very good QB who still likes to throw one the other way at the worst times. It will be a close game, I can see it going either way, but in the end, I think 49ers bring a little more to the table.

That's what people said in 2007. To be quite honest, the Giants had a lot of key injuries during the regular season, and they were in almost all of their losses until the end of the game (lost to Seattle by 12, but were down by 5 in the redzone before Cruz bobbled the pass and it was picked off for a TD). Entering the playoffs, they are completely healthy and playing mistake free football. Sure, Eli is capable of throwing Ints, but he tends to shine in the post-season (6-3 lifetime). Eli is 44 for 65 this post-season for 607 yds, 6 TDs, and only 1 Int.

Everyone keeps raving about the San Fran defense, but they still gave up 32 points to the Saints. Sure, I know people are saying that the Giants offense is not as good as the Saints, but the Giants were still ranked 8th this season in total offense. Also, if it hadn't been for 5 turnovers, it would have been way more than 32 points.

With that said, I think both teams have a really good shot of winning this game, the only way I will be surprised is if the game turns to a blowout.

Well, I didn't believe in the Giants in '07 either, I was probably one of those people you mentioned . I think they have a really good team that sometimes makes really dumb mistakes (living in DC, I get to see them quite a bit). They have cut out the mistakes in the playoffs and are playing at a high level for sure. But I just can't get rid of the feeling that, at a critical juncture, they will make a bad mistake that costs them the game.
Still, I think it will be a close, exciting game and I can easily see both teams winning.

Kush15 wrote:

Everyone keeps raving about the San Fran defense, but they still gave up 32 points to the Saints. Sure, I know people are saying that the Giants offense is not as good as the Saints, but the Giants were still ranked 8th this season in total offense. Also, if it hadn't been for 5 turnovers, it would have been way more than 32 points.

16 of those points in the 4th quarter flurry that both teams had going back and forth to try to win the game. Holding the Saints to 20 through 3 quarters isn't bad. The lowest the Saints scored all year was 22, and they had 6 games of 40 or more. Anyway, they did hold them under the season average of 34. If they do the same to the Giants (only 24.6), they'll win again.

And I'm pretty sure we'd all agree Eli is more likely to turn it over than Brees. 129 career INTs on 3921 attempts, vs Brees 146 INT on 5479 attempts. 1 every 30.3 passes vs 1 every 37.5.

But PieFace is a Manning... so just grit your teeth and face the facts.. Giants in another SB.

TheGameguru wrote:

But PieFace is a Manning... so just grit your teeth and face the facts.. Giants in another SB.

Any word on who is reffing the game? Given the behavior in San Francisco this past year, a ref doing the usual "Manning exception" might not get out of there alive.

Atras wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

But PieFace is a Manning... so just grit your teeth and face the facts.. Giants in another SB.

Any word on who is reffing the game? Given the behavior in San Francisco this past year, a ref doing the usual "Manning exception" might not get out of there alive.

Not to sound like a biased Giants fan, but I've never seen a "Manning Exception" from the refs for Eli. I'm curious to hear some examples. Mind you, I'm not mocking your point, just not sure it's accurate.

TheGameguru wrote:

But PieFace is a Manning

Also, I've heard Manning refered to as "PieFace", but not sure why he's called that?
*EDIT* I will probably regret asking. I'm assuming this is what everyone means:
IMAGE(http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/eli-manning-ny-giants.jpg)

Kush15 wrote:
Atras wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

But PieFace is a Manning... so just grit your teeth and face the facts.. Giants in another SB.

Any word on who is reffing the game? Given the behavior in San Francisco this past year, a ref doing the usual "Manning exception" might not get out of there alive.

Not to sound like a biased Giants fan, but I've never seen a "Manning Exception" from the refs for Eli. I'm curious to hear some examples. Mind you, I'm not mocking your point, just not sure it's accurate.

In all honesty, it probably isn't terribly accurate. I'm a Pats fan (NE born and bred), so I see my fair share of calls in Brady's favor (Tuck Rule). I really don't like when bad calls change the outcome of plays, for either team - but I doubt I would have argued if they considered one hand and one helmet to control the ball a catch. I do think that Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and to a lesser degree Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers get some really crazy calls in their favor, and I don't like it.

Kush15 wrote:
Atras wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

But PieFace is a Manning... so just grit your teeth and face the facts.. Giants in another SB.

Any word on who is reffing the game? Given the behavior in San Francisco this past year, a ref doing the usual "Manning exception" might not get out of there alive.

Not to sound like a biased Giants fan, but I've never seen a "Manning Exception" from the refs for Eli. I'm curious to hear some examples. Mind you, I'm not mocking your point, just not sure it's accurate.

Yeah Peyton maybe, but not Eli.

And still not as bad as Brady. Ugh. Good luck Ravens, playing outnumbered this weekend.

It's simple...any "questionable" call that goes in favor of NY or Indy is chalked up to "being a Manning"

I wish the Eagles could hire a cousin or something...

The Tuck Rule game wasn't a questionable call; the Competition Committee has reviewed it several times since, and every time they've confirmed the rule as stands. It may be an unpopular rule, but it was clearly called correctly.

TheGameguru wrote:

It's simple...any "questionable" call that goes in favor of NY or Indy is chalked up to "being a Manning"

I wish the Eagles could hire a cousin or something...

Just get a Harbaugh.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

The Tuck Rule game wasn't a questionable call; the Competition Committee has reviewed it several times since, and every time they've confirmed the rule as stands. It may be an unpopular rule, but it was clearly called correctly.

Sure it was...the fact that the ball was knocked out..not dropped...and knocked backwards..ruling it a incomplete forward pass on the basis of the tuck rule is the problem.. The call was bad as many believe because it was wrongly applied to the tuck rule.. Which IMO should only exist to handle forward motion of the throwing arm where the QB changes his mind but then fumbles the ball forward..

Backwards should ALWAYS be a live ball no matter what...makes the game a whole lot easier to enforce.

TheGameguru wrote:

It's simple...any "questionable" call that goes in favor of NY or Indy is chalked up to "being a Manning"

I wish the Eagles could hire a cousin or something...

Once again, I don't see any questionable calls going in favor of the Giants. I think the Giants record vs the Eagles would be a little better if that were the case.

TheGameguru wrote:

Backwards should ALWAYS be a live ball no matter what...makes the game a whole lot easier to enforce.

100% agree. It's funny, today is the 10 year anniversary of that game. Snow Bowl = best reason to allow the Superbowl to be played *anywhere*. I really think that the Superbowl should go to the stadium that won the previous year's Superbowl - kind of an extra congratulations to the locals for the previous year.

cube wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

It's simple...any "questionable" call that goes in favor of NY or Indy is chalked up to "being a Manning"

I wish the Eagles could hire a cousin or something...

Just get a Harbaugh.

?!?!?!?!

Atras wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Backwards should ALWAYS be a live ball no matter what...makes the game a whole lot easier to enforce.

100% agree. It's funny, today is the 10 year anniversary of that game. Snow Bowl = best reason to allow the Superbowl to be played *anywhere*. I really think that the Superbowl should go to the stadium that won the previous year's Superbowl - kind of an extra congratulations to the locals for the previous year.

That's not fair to Philadelphia........................

They're doing "tuck rule anniversary" stuff on NFL Live right now.

Stele wrote:

They're doing "tuck rule anniversary" stuff on NFL Live right now. :lol:

Isn't the Tuck Rule that new rule where Justin is only allowed in the backfield once every 4 plays, to make it fair for the other teams?
IMAGE(http://susanshan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Justin-Tuck.jpg)

Atras wrote:

I really think that the Superbowl should go to the stadium that won the previous year's Superbowl - kind of an extra congratulations to the locals for the previous year.

Best idea ever. Or maybe 2 years out, since they seem to do a little planning. You win in 2012, you get to host in 2014.

Kush15 wrote:
Atras wrote:

I really think that the Superbowl should go to the stadium that won the previous year's Superbowl - kind of an extra congratulations to the locals for the previous year.

That's not fair to Philadelphia........................ 8-)

Given how seldom a team repeats, I think it isn't a big threat to have a "visiting" team.

Kush15 wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

It's simple...any "questionable" call that goes in favor of NY or Indy is chalked up to "being a Manning"

I wish the Eagles could hire a cousin or something...

Once again, I don't see any questionable calls going in favor of the Giants. I think the Giants record vs the Eagles would be a little better if that were the case.

U forgot Shockeys split second "catch" for a TD in the end zone??

TheGameguru wrote:
Kush15 wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

It's simple...any "questionable" call that goes in favor of NY or Indy is chalked up to "being a Manning"

I wish the Eagles could hire a cousin or something...

Once again, I don't see any questionable calls going in favor of the Giants. I think the Giants record vs the Eagles would be a little better if that were the case.

U forgot Shockeys split second "catch" for a TD in the end zone??

Absolutely horrible call. Completely agree, but there's still no "Manning" advantage. Did you forget the non fumble last Sunday vs the Packers? Coughlin is 0 for the century with challenges.

On the Superbowl location posts: I'll disagree.

Basically you are penalizing teams that don't play in the frozen north during the year. If a team has a fast paced passing offense, you are almost guaranteeing that they will not be able to use what got them there in the Superbowl. Meanwhile a team that plays in the north does not really lose anything by playing in good weather in the Superbowl.

Talking about turf teams, those teams still have to play half their games. Having turf or a dome is no more an advantage then having to your opponents have to come play in the snow or in mile high air.

Who would expect a team that barely made the Playoffs to be a favorite to go to the Super Bowl? Giants.

Also, because I live in Baltimore, and hate the Patriots... Ravens.