Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
Darryl wrote:Actually, what you missed is that the Simultaneous Possession rule is about control, not completion. While for a completion, the ball would have to be in maintained control through contact with the ground, in order to determine whether control was first one player or simultaneous, you simply look at the order of events. The video shows W. D. Jennings gaining clear control of the ball while Tate has only barely touched the ball. So the call of simultaneous possession was absolutely wrong. Once Jennings has first control, as long as he maintains control all the way to the ground, he (should be) awarded possession, and as he was downed in his own endzone immediately, without having entered it with control of the ball on his own, the proper call would be a touchback on a game-winning interception. And no, while Simultaneous Possession is not normally reviewable, it is one of the plays that has an exception for the end zone (meaning it is reviewable while in the end zone).

Second, there was never a call on the field before the replay commenced. That is absolutely, 100% a violation of everything abut he instant replay rules, as there must be a call to either overturn, confirm, or let stand. There were two officials signalling two different rulings, no conference, and the referee never signaled one way or the other (the referee is the head official, for our Brit friend in the thread). And since the replay call was "stands" (which means no clear evidence one way or the other), the lack of an on-field ruling makes the foul-up that much worse.

Also, I watched the game live, as well as the 2 hours of replays on ESPN afterward. Tate was only touching the ball when Jennings took control of it.
Both players establishing control doesn't seem like a requirement for a simultaneous reception. The entire concept relates to two guys fighting over the ball the entire time. The defender needs to separate the offensive player from the ball prior to being downed for it to be ruled an interception IMHO. To me, the ruling is far from black and white like everyone seems to make it out to be. This idea that the offensive player had no right to possession because he only had 1 hand on the ball is absurd. The number of hands is irrelevant. You could catch a ball in your arm pit if you want ffs. If the ball is stable, not on the ground, and you're in bounds that's a catch. It's the defender's fault for trying to catch the stupid thing anyway. Bat it down!

Both players were touching the ball the entire time until they are both on the ground in the end zone. The ball was "in control". Therefore, simultaneous catch. Also, the lack of an offensive pass interference call is of course completely normal, replacement official or normal official.

Here is the exact text of the rule in question:

Rule 8 - Section 3 - Article 1 - Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.


Please pay special attention to the sentence I bolded.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:52 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
Darryl wrote:Actually, what you missed is that the Simultaneous Possession rule is about control, not completion. While for a completion, the ball would have to be in maintained control through contact with the ground, in order to determine whether control was first one player or simultaneous, you simply look at the order of events. The video shows W. D. Jennings gaining clear control of the ball while Tate has only barely touched the ball. So the call of simultaneous possession was absolutely wrong. Once Jennings has first control, as long as he maintains control all the way to the ground, he (should be) awarded possession, and as he was downed in his own endzone immediately, without having entered it with control of the ball on his own, the proper call would be a touchback on a game-winning interception. And no, while Simultaneous Possession is not normally reviewable, it is one of the plays that has an exception for the end zone (meaning it is reviewable while in the end zone).

Second, there was never a call on the field before the replay commenced. That is absolutely, 100% a violation of everything abut he instant replay rules, as there must be a call to either overturn, confirm, or let stand. There were two officials signalling two different rulings, no conference, and the referee never signaled one way or the other (the referee is the head official, for our Brit friend in the thread). And since the replay call was "stands" (which means no clear evidence one way or the other), the lack of an on-field ruling makes the foul-up that much worse.

Also, I watched the game live, as well as the 2 hours of replays on ESPN afterward. Tate was only touching the ball when Jennings took control of it.
Both players establishing control doesn't seem like a requirement for a simultaneous reception. The entire concept relates to two guys fighting over the ball the entire time. The defender needs to separate the offensive player from the ball prior to being downed for it to be ruled an interception IMHO. To me, the ruling is far from black and white like everyone seems to make it out to be. This idea that the offensive player had no right to possession because he only had 1 hand on the ball is absurd. The number of hands is irrelevant. You could catch a ball in your arm pit if you want ffs. If the ball is stable, not on the ground, and you're in bounds that's a catch. It's the defender's fault for trying to catch the stupid thing anyway. Bat it down!

Both players were touching the ball the entire time until they are both on the ground in the end zone. The ball was "in control". Therefore, simultaneous catch. Also, the lack of an offensive pass interference call is of course completely normal, replacement official or normal official.


but Tate never had control of the ball. he wasn't even touching the ball the entire time.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:56 pm UTC

Here's a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtYeeFpPPz0

jenning's arm is not the ball

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby charliepanayi » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:50 pm UTC

Nice of Dallas and Romo to provide me with much needed amusement.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:10 pm UTC

Much better from the Giants this weekend :D
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Telchar » Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:14 pm UTC

Was playing against Aaron Rodgers and Shonn Greene in my dynasty league this week....

Was still 30 points ahead going into last night....


Got jobbed by Bryan Hartline and Andre Roberts the last few weeks....


I hate the NFL.....but mostly just Aaron Rodgers...
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

The entire AFC East is tied at 3-3, with a bye week coming up for Miami.

And in fact, if the Broncos win tonight, there will only be 2 teams with a record over .500 in the AFC, as it would put them and the Chargers to 3-3.

Meanwhile, no one in the NFC West has a losing record (the worst is the 3-3 Rams).

And the Falcons are the last undefeated team left after Rodgers lit the Texans up like they were the Browns.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Garm » Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:29 am UTC

What the whut? I leave the restaurant where the Broncos are getting their teeth kicked in. Go buy apple sauce for my two year old and drive home to find out they'd reeled off 35 unanswered.... Shouldn'ta left the spot with the TV.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:17 pm UTC

Peyton Manning is good at football.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby bentheimmigrant » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:38 pm UTC

With the 31st ranked scoring offense, and the 13th ranked scoring D, the Eagles make the obvious decision: to fire their defensive coordinator...

:(
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Garm » Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Peyton Manning is good at football.


That is a true fact. I don't know why, in some circles, this is up for debate.

He'll always have a special place in my heart for being the replacement to Tim Tebow. It's no wonder Elway was ready to throw so much money at him. Now if only the rest of Denver's team could stop being such a bunch of schlubs.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby sigsfried » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:23 pm UTC

So having watched a few more games I had a few questions. The first one where is play resumed from. I am assuming it is the centre in line with where the previous play ended but just wanted to check. Secondly are there any limits on substitutions, a limit to the total number of players allowed or anything like that (obviously there is a limit to the amount allowed on at any given time that isn't what I mean). Finally why are there so many long breaks in play, is it really that exhausting because the players look like they are ready to play but there are huge amounts of time waiting around. And on a vaguely similar line under what circumstances is the clock stopped?

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Garm » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:38 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:So having watched a few more games I had a few questions. The first one where is play resumed from. I am assuming it is the centre in line with where the previous play ended but just wanted to check. Secondly are there any limits on substitutions, a limit to the total number of players allowed or anything like that (obviously there is a limit to the amount allowed on at any given time that isn't what I mean). Finally why are there so many long breaks in play, is it really that exhausting because the players look like they are ready to play but there are huge amounts of time waiting around. And on a vaguely similar line under what circumstances is the clock stopped?


Play is resumed, I think, from the hash-mark nearest the side where the ball was downed. The hash-marks are off the center of the field by a little bit (more in college than in the NFL).
No limits to substitutions. Subs need to be in or out of the game in a certain pattern and there are a variety of penalties for substituting illegally or having too many men on the field.
Cynically, advertising drives the long breaks in play. Really it's poor planning. The New England Patriots, when on offense, are running plays very quickly (compared to everyone else) and it's making it hard for defenses to substitute. The team that really pioneered this (I think) is the Oregon Ducks. I have a feeling their coach will be in the NFL next year.
The clock stops for a variety of reasons. When a pass falls incomplete, when a ball-carrier runs out of bounds, and when there's a timeout are the common ones.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:07 pm UTC

Non-cynically, there is downtime because the offense is given 35 seconds to organize before snapping the ball and restarting play. The offense is not required to use this much time, but if they exceed this they are penalized. The defense generally uses this time to make substitutions and changes as well. However, if time is an issue the offense will simply line up immediately and the quarterback will shout signals (called the hurry-up or two-minute-drill).

The clock also stops on any score and any turnover (pass intercepted by defense, fumbled ball recovered by defense, kickoff or punt return).

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby bentheimmigrant » Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:23 pm UTC

The ball is spotted where it was downed if it is within the hash marks.

As for advertising, this is true between possessions, and I've seen it referred to as a tv timeout.

And there are 53 players on each team, with a maximum of 45 (I think) dressed on gameday.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:42 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Non-cynically, there is downtime because the offense is given 35 seconds to organize before snapping the ball and restarting play. The offense is not required to use this much time, but if they exceed this they are penalized. The defense generally uses this time to make substitutions and changes as well. However, if time is an issue the offense will simply line up immediately and the quarterback will shout signals (called the hurry-up or two-minute-drill).

The clock also stops on any score and any turnover (pass intercepted by defense, fumbled ball recovered by defense, kickoff or punt return).

Or when the person with the ball is stopped by going out of bounds rather than being tackled to the ground or having his forward progress completely stopped. Or when a forward pass is incomplete.

The "shouting signals at the line of scrimmage" is called an audible in general, and is also used to change a play slightly in response to a defense look that would be bad for the current play (for example a receiver's route could be changed to a block if the defense looks like it's blitzing - sending extra players in a rush against the quarterback, usually a cornerback or linebacker, sometimes a safety - or audible a run if the defense is in a formation that sacrifices run defense for pass defense). The defense can also audible (and has fewer restrictions on movement pre-snap than the offense), which is called by the defensive captain, usually a defensive back in the center of the defensive formation.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:53 pm UTC

San Diego losing to Cleveland - the ultimate indignity surely.

Shame the game at Wembley was so one-sided, would love to go and see a game there one season.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Maybe next time they'll send a team whose mascot isn't identified with killing the British.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Adacore » Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:54 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:Shame the game at Wembley was so one-sided, would love to go and see a game there one season.

I went to the London game in 2007 (Dolphins / Giants). It was possibly the worst NFL game I've ever seen, but that was just a coincidence - the Saints / Chargers game the following year was spectacular, but I couldn't make it for that one :(

User avatar
rath358
The bone of my bone
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:02 am UTC
Location: west Camberville

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby rath358 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:34 am UTC

I didn't realize they did an annual game on the other side of the pond until I came across those two posts.
Huh. That is pretty awesome!

(You can probably guess how much I actually follow the sport...)

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:38 pm UTC

So, learned an interesting fact from this week's Shame Report.

No QB drafted by the Chiefs has won a single game for the Chiefs since 1987.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Adacore » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:02 am UTC

Darryl wrote:So, learned an interesting fact from this week's Shame Report.

No QB drafted by the Chiefs has won a single game for the Chiefs since 1987.

I think Brodie Croyle might be the only QB drafted by the Chiefs who has even played for them at all in a regular season game since 1987.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:06 am UTC

Adacore wrote:
Darryl wrote:So, learned an interesting fact from this week's Shame Report.

No QB drafted by the Chiefs has won a single game for the Chiefs since 1987.

I think Brodie Croyle might be the only QB drafted by the Chiefs who has even played for them at all in a regular season game since 1987.

That is true. I thought Quinn was one of their drat picks, though.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

Nope. Quinn went to the Browns, then the Broncos, and now he's in Arizona.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Adacore » Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:13 am UTC

I would just like to say, even though I only saw a couple of clips, the Patriots-Jets game looked like it was comedy gold. Three New England touchdowns in 56 seconds in the second quarter :lol:

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Aetius » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:11 am UTC

Adacore wrote:I would just like to say, even though I only saw a couple of clips, the Patriots-Jets game looked like it was comedy gold. Three New England touchdowns in 56 seconds in the second quarter :lol:


The Patriots held the ball for 2:14 in the second quarter... and scored 35 points. That's more than any other team averages per game

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:08 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:
Adacore wrote:I would just like to say, even though I only saw a couple of clips, the Patriots-Jets game looked like it was comedy gold. Three New England touchdowns in 56 seconds in the second quarter :lol:


The Patriots held the ball for 2:14 in the second quarter... and scored 35 points. That's more than any other team averages per game

The takeaway? The Jets are bad.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
XTCamus
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:59 pm UTC
Location: "...on that dizzying crest"

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby XTCamus » Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:06 am UTC

Darryl wrote:
Aetius wrote:
Adacore wrote:I would just like to say, even though I only saw a couple of clips, the Patriots-Jets game looked like it was comedy gold. Three New England touchdowns in 56 seconds in the second quarter :lol:


The Patriots held the ball for 2:14 in the second quarter... and scored 35 points. That's more than any other team averages per game

The takeaway? The Jets are bad.

That's right. The only alternative would be to give credit to the Patriots, and there's no way that is going to go over well..

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Garm » Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:45 pm UTC

XTCamus wrote:
Darryl wrote:
Aetius wrote:
Adacore wrote:I would just like to say, even though I only saw a couple of clips, the Patriots-Jets game looked like it was comedy gold. Three New England touchdowns in 56 seconds in the second quarter :lol:


The Patriots held the ball for 2:14 in the second quarter... and scored 35 points. That's more than any other team averages per game

The takeaway? The Jets are bad.

That's right. The only alternative would be to give credit to the Patriots, and there's no way that is going to go over well..


It'd be unfair to credit the Pats with Sanchez's fumble that was returned for a touchdown. Having such poor field vision that you run into the back of your own lineman, fall over and fumble is not due to anything the other team is doing right or wrong.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Dark567 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:46 pm UTC

I think randomness often occurs in NFL games and sometimes credit belongs to no one.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:10 am UTC

XTCamus wrote:
Darryl wrote:
Aetius wrote:
Adacore wrote:I would just like to say, even though I only saw a couple of clips, the Patriots-Jets game looked like it was comedy gold. Three New England touchdowns in 56 seconds in the second quarter :lol:


The Patriots held the ball for 2:14 in the second quarter... and scored 35 points. That's more than any other team averages per game

The takeaway? The Jets are bad.

That's right. The only alternative would be to give credit to the Patriots, and there's no way that is going to go over well..

I'm willing to give credit to the Pats, but blowouts are not generally caused by just a good team, but by a good team facing a bad team.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:45 pm UTC

Blowouts are caused by coaches who are willing to risk injury to their starters for no good reason.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:38 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Blowouts are caused by coaches who are willing to risk injury to their starters for no good reason.

There's this, too. I'll have no sympathy when Brady gets injured in garbage time.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Telchar » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Blowouts are caused by coaches who are willing to risk injury to their starters because many of them have contract escalators based on statistical performance.


FTFY

Clearly, not the case for everyone but it's definitely an issue that comes up when you ask the players themselves about the actions taken by coaches in blowouts.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby bentheimmigrant » Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:51 pm UTC

Also a cause: Tom Landry offending Buddy Ryan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDWxTsl4rI
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Blowouts are caused by coaches who are willing to risk injury to their starters because many of them have contract escalators based on statistical performance.


FTFY

Clearly, not the case for everyone but it's definitely an issue that comes up when you ask the players themselves about the actions taken by coaches in blowouts.

That doesn't make sense to me. If I'm writing a contract, wouldn't I consider the fact that the three teams I play twice a year are consistently awful? Or that my coach has a reputation for running up the score? So maybe that would work once or twice, but wouldn't regular blowouts that the performance statistics are higher?

I thought the reason was that you're worried the opposing team, who has been ineffective all game, will suddenly score 4 times in a row, and that risk is greater than the risk that your star receiver will break his arm.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:54 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Telchar wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Blowouts are caused by coaches who are willing to risk injury to their starters because many of them have contract escalators based on statistical performance.


FTFY

Clearly, not the case for everyone but it's definitely an issue that comes up when you ask the players themselves about the actions taken by coaches in blowouts.

That doesn't make sense to me. If I'm writing a contract, wouldn't I consider the fact that the three teams I play twice a year are consistently awful? Or that my coach has a reputation for running up the score? So maybe that would work once or twice, but wouldn't regular blowouts that the performance statistics are higher?

I thought the reason was that you're worried the opposing team, who has been ineffective all game, will suddenly score 4 times in a row, and that risk is greater than the risk that your star receiver will break his arm.

Except even that's not a valid fear, because in American Football, substituting is almost entirely unrestricted (only restriction is on the QB, if a third QB takes the field prior to the fourth quarter, the starter is locked out for the remainder).
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Dark567 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:42 am UTC

Darryl wrote:Except even that's not a valid fear, because in American Football, substituting is almost entirely unrestricted (only restriction is on the QB, if a third QB takes the field prior to the fourth quarter, the starter is locked out for the remainder).
That doesn't absolve the fear, the other team may score 4 TDs and your starters may come back in and be ineffective. Teams have come back from 3 and 4 TD leads before, its rare but it happens.

Also the third QB rule only comes into affect if you only dress 2 QBs for the game. If you dress three(happens when the starting QB or backup are at higher risk), you can substitute all you want.

Edit: Never mind, they apparently abolished the rule this season and just increased the number of dressed players to 46 to compensate. I bet most teams use it for a non QB position though.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby Darryl » Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:16 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Darryl wrote:Except even that's not a valid fear, because in American Football, substituting is almost entirely unrestricted (only restriction is on the QB, if a third QB takes the field prior to the fourth quarter, the starter is locked out for the remainder).
That doesn't absolve the fear, the other team may score 4 TDs and your starters may come back in and be ineffective. Teams have come back from 3 and 4 TD leads before, its rare but it happens.

Also the third QB rule only comes into affect if you only dress 2 QBs for the game. If you dress three(happens when the starting QB or backup are at higher risk), you can substitute all you want.

Edit: Never mind, they apparently abolished the rule this season and just increased the number of dressed players to 46 to compensate. I bet most teams use it for a non QB position though.

Yeah, but you don't wait until they're all the way back before you send 'em back in. If they show signs of an actual comeback, you put 'em back in. If they're back within 1-2 possessions, put your starters back in. But if you're destroying them that badly with your first-stringers, your second-stringers should be able to maintain. And I'm pretty sure most actual comebacks have come against starters. Peyton Manning lit up the San Diego starters coming back from that 28-0 halftime score in their first meeting.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Are you Ready for some "Football"!!! NFL Discussion

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:06 am UTC

So...

AFC:
Cincinnati (6) @ Houston (3)
Indianapolis (5) @ Baltimore (4)

Byes: Denver (1), New England (2)

NFC:
Minnesota (6) @ Green Bay (3)
Seattle (5) @ Dallas/Washington (4)

Byes: Atlanta (1), San Francisco (2)

What do we think?
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Deva and 7 guests