1761

Yeah, he should get an assist on that touchdown.

1762

He got his own TD later too I believe. On the same play they called 4 plays before, quick handoff to the Fullback. The Saints D needs help. And they were playing against what is probably one of the best offenses in the league right now.

1763

Even with those famous guys, look at the percentage of kicks returned for TDs. It’s very low.

And I mean, even 3-4 TDs a season is a big deal, especially because they’re easy ‘n’ quick and demoralizing. And obviously the better returners get good field position, which is not nothing.

I’m just saying, if you kick off, there’s basically no expectation as a general rule that it’s going to be run back for a TD.

1764

2006 Devin Hester is holding on line 1 to discuss this with you.

EDIT: I will read the remainder of the thread before posting. I will read the remainder of the thread before posting. I will read the remainder of the thread before posting. I will read the remainder of the thread before posting. etc etc

1765

I see your edit, but just because I got curious and looked the numbers up, Wikipedia Pete says of 2006-era Hester: “He finished the 2006 season by accumulating three touchdowns for 600 yards on 47 punt returns, and two touchdowns for 528 yards on 20 kick returns, thus making him one of the league’s most productive kick and punt returners.”

That’s five touchdowns on 67 returns, which means that 92.5% of his kick returns did not go for touchdowns – and that’s a legendary returner in a legendary/fluky year.

Kick returns for touchdowns are just really genuinely rare, fluky plays.

1766

I think there’s a fair amount of distance between “sure thing” and “fluke”. Kick return touchdowns are rare and rely on a lot of things going right, but that doesn’t make it a fluke every time it happens. A fluke is when a guy trips over his own feet or a pass to a wide open guy hits the uprights. The Green Bay return touchdown was a fluke, because Kuhn just happened to be in exactly the right place to keep him from going down. The Sproles return wasn’t something they can do whenever they want, but it was basically just good blocking and good running. There was nothing about the play that, on its own, would be impossible to replicate.

1767

I’m not saying it’s like hand-of-god weird. I’m saying, you kick off to that guy and that coverage team 100 times, and you’ll expect to see a TD maybe three times. For the TD to happen, everything has to go just right – all it takes is one returner being in better position, one foot slipping, a little bit more wind under the ball, whatever, and now you don’t have a TD.

Not taking credit away from the Saints, just saying, that’s not a play that’s going to happen that way often.

1768

How about Woodson’s hit on David Thomas? I think he thought he could get away with it, and it was fairly obscured, but it looks like a ref was looking just the right way at the right moment.

1769

If the ref really had the perfect angle, why wasn’t Woodson ejected? The rule is pretty black and white on punching.

1770

I think if a kickoff return touchdown is a fluky play, every touchdown of more than about 10 yards is a fluky play.

1771

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe his angle wasn’t as good as it seemed? The penalty was called though.

1772

Not because I care a lot but can a player in the NFL get suspended after a game for something like that or does he just get to pay a fine?

Btw, I talked a few of my friends (Swedes) into watching the game and they’ve been messing me like crazy about how awesome this sport seems. Fun.

1773

I would be surprised if they suspend Woodson. They should have ejected him, and he’ll get fined, and he’s contrite and apologetic.

1774

That’s true, in a sense; it’s just that there’s a lot more opportunity for it to happen. But that’s largely my point: A lot of scoring in the NFL happens on plays where you say “if it weren’t for x, he wouldn’t have scored,” and you can’t really draw any “We would have won if not for x” conclusions from that.

1775

There are many times a game turns on one play. I don’t think GB/NO had any plays like that, both teams were too on fire for one play to change the course of a game. But the pick-six in the GB/ATL game last year, or Matt Dodge punting straight to DeSean Jackson with a tie game, that kind of thing does happen.

1776

Not to take anything away from Rodgers or this “fluky play” discussion, but for me the game came down to one thing: the Green Bay offensive line was able to pick up a yard when they needed a yard, and New Orleans couldn’t. Brees and Rodgers both played well enough to win, the reason Green Bay did win wasn’t Rodgers, it was the touchdown by Kuhn and the two times Ingram was stuffed. Passing and scheme are great and all, but there are times when every team needs to be able to just line up and play power football.

1777

Ultimately, I think the right team won last night. Both teams scored on 5 offensive possessions and had a return TD. The difference was that the Packers had 5 offensive TDs, while the Saints offense had 3 TDs and 2 FGs. The Packers were able to make a few more key plays on defense than the Saints, and that was the difference.

I’ll say this, though: The way Brees played last night, against what’s supposed to be one of the best defenses in the NFL, he could be looking at another 5000 yard season.

1778

I know what you’re saying, but you’re totally 100% wrong. If you put Rex Grossman in there instead of Rodgers, the Packers lose by a mile. The power running game is great and all, but it doesn’t get you 42 points on the Saints defense, and 42 points is what the Packer offense needed to win.

Which is to say, Rodgers can’t win a game all on his own (just as Brees couldn’t), but neither of those teams would have had a chance against the other without Rodgers/Brees at the wheel.

1779

First of all, no, a power running team would not have needed 42 points to win, because the other team would not have had the ball long enough to score as much.

However, my point wasn’t that some sad-sack like Grossman or Alex Smith could’ve won on Green Bay, it’s that Rodgers was not clearly better than Brees in the game. Both of them got into third and one and both had plays from the one yard line. If the Saints were better in the trenches, they would’ve won.

And frankly, I think the reason Green Bay are defending champions is that there is more to the team than just a great passing attack. Yes, Rodgers is one of the elite QBs in the league, but so is Brees. The Saints however are a much more one-dimensional team. It remains to be seen whether their defense is that bad or the Green Bay offense is that good, but to me they look like a team that will lose some games because they can’t run when they need to and stop the run when they need to.

1780

To be fair, Saints wasn’t good at stopping the run in 2009 either. In fact, I’d say they’ve sucked at stopping the run. They couldn’t stop Adrian Peterson in the NFC title game that year but he could fumble his team right out of the game, a few times more or less unprovoked. And that game went into overtime. Saints won on turnovers and the fact that they were scoring so consistently that some opponents were forced to abandon the run game to catch up, which led to more turnovers.
I’m really hoping they get better at it, soon.