haha, I'm watching the interview with Wes Welker where he told the story. Welker is a funny dude

Izzo story starts at about 3:15

The first Welker story at the beginning is very good too. Between this interview, the Rex Ryan foot interview, and dropping the pass in the SB last year, he might be my favorite NFL player

Can't wait for TNF

lol...who knew Wes Welker was actually a stoner?

placeholder for tonights game

Not a whole heck of a lot to do back in Lubbock, TX

It seems extremely unlikely to me, actually. Unless you just mean "Teams that are pitching a shutout sure seem to be playing defense really well." Which is kinda dumb but yes it is true.

No it doesnt. It implies that you have some half-cocked theory, and whenever you see a team continue to shut someone out you remember it, and whenever you see a team hold the opponent at 3 for 3 quarters, you dont.

Uhhh....yes it is? It would be extremely easy to show this. Just to give an example of how you might do it, look at just second half yards per play, points per quarter, something like that, of teams that had given up 0 points, and teams that had given up 3 points, or 7 points. Add in a small fudge factor to cover the fact that the teams giving up 0 are probably at least a LITTLE bit better, on average, than those giving up 3.

If the teams who have, thus far, given up 0, are just absolutely crushing it in the second half, compared to those who have given up 3, then thats good evidence that your theory is true.

It really never ceases to amaze me how people who hold really dumb theories are CERTAIN that it would be impossible to prove or disprove their dumb theories. Its almost like its a defense mechanism!

norval updates?

norval turner saved from any coaching decisions by the chiefs inability to play football at an above peewee level

I'm confused. Why didnt Middle Tennessee have to kick off after the safety?

I'm confused as to why you watched that game. Smiley face.

Lol at points given up accurately reflecting motivation of individual players wanting a shutout. They can be absolutely crushing while you still can't pin point the reason. Good luck with that.

Just clarifying, is your claim here that motivation wouldn't show up noticeably as players playing better, or that players playing better won't show up as better defensive performance in the stats?

How many of the rest of u believe that Izzo's gonna have long-term health issues that'd put roids 2 shame?

[OK, OK, it's only RedBull's and MuscleMax, but JFC,
A COAT HANGER???]

Two horrible coaches facing each other and this thread isn't flipping?

No, my claim is that your not going to be able to attribute the stats to individual defensive players being motivated to keep their shutout. Although they definitely are.

so they'll be motivated to keep the shutout but it won't actually affect anything.

.....

Either player motivation to maintain a shutout is a factor in the decision to kick the field goal, or it isn't. If it is, it must be because the defence will play better trying to maintain a shutout. If that is true, then assuming decent samples can be obtained, the difference in stats like ypp or points allowed between teams trying to maintain a shutout and teams simply leading by a lot should be observable. Given a large enough sample and a large enough difference it can be attributed to difference in motivation. Not sure what out of this you don't agree with/understand.

There weren't any coaching decisions to be made really. I guess Romeo not breaking Matt Cassel's leg before the game could qualify as obviously stupid.

Al Groh did that once when he was head coach at Virginia. I think he wanted the wind or some stupid **** like that.

When Wes Welker smiles, he kind of looks like Tobey Maguire.

I gave you options? I said yards/play, points, whatever metric you wanna use.

Oh it will effect EVERYTHING. Just not in any, ya know, measurable way like score or yards or anything. BUT THATS JUST MATH