The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

The_Honeybadger · 11-06-2019 8:28pm

mikemac2 wrote: »

I’ve heard of players failing conditioning drills at the start of training camp sure. I don’t remember a player being taken off the field

It’s crazy how players let themselves go with so much on the line. Back in the 90’s the Steelers cut their first round pick from a few years earlier Jamain Stevens after he showed up significantly overweight and he failed to complete the conditioning drills, he walked the 40 yard dash allegedly. He was cut immediately and he signed for the Bengals.

Oat23 · 11-06-2019 11:57pm

This is gonna be the best Hard Knocks in years.

https://twitter.com/NFL/status/1138579722349228032?s=19

jack presley · 12-06-2019 8:15am

My money’s on Richie Incognito being this year’s Brian Cushing.

The_Honeybadger · 12-06-2019 9:35am

Even with the move to Vegas next year there was just too much happening with the Raiders this year to pass on them. It’s going to be fascinating. Cannot wait.

Oat23 · 12-06-2019 8:05pm

Bears down to 2 kickers after cutting Blewitt. The other 2 haven't impressed so far either. I think Pace will cave and try to trade for Gould if things aren't looking good a week or two into camp and he still hasn't signed his franchise tag.

https://twitter.com/ChicagoBears/status/1138817848720220160

Itssoeasy · 14-06-2019 12:38pm

The Denver broncos owner pat Bowlen has died at the age of 75. He had been battling Alzheimer's disease for years but under his ownership of the team they won three Lombardi trophies. He will be inducted into the pro football hall of fame in August and the broncos had picked the person to induct him last month.

OOnegative · 14-06-2019 4:37pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The Denver broncos owner pat Bowlen has died at the age of 75. He had been battling Alzheimer's disease for years but under his ownership of the team they won three Lombardi trophies. He will be inducted into the pro football hall of fame in August and the broncos had picked the person to induct him last month.

7 AFC titles & 3 Super Bowls since he bought the franchise with his siblings, brought a lot of success to the city of Denver.

eagle eye · 14-06-2019 7:05pm

Oat23 wrote:

Bears down to 2 kickers after cutting Blewitt. The other 2 haven't impressed so far either. I think Pace will cave and try to trade for Gould if things aren't looking good a week or two into camp and he still hasn't signed his franchise tag.

Well just as well they cut that guy. Could you imagine what would happen the first time he missed a kick?!

brinty · 14-06-2019 7:23pm

Dad news to hear, lost my own father to Alzheimer's recently and you'd not wish it on anyone

Realt Dearg Sec · 17-06-2019 11:41pm

brinty wrote: »

Dad news to hear, lost my own father to Alzheimer's recently and you'd not wish it on anyone

Sorry to hear that brinty, it's an awful disease.

billr67 · 18-06-2019 10:06am

brinty wrote: »

Dad news to hear, lost my own father to Alzheimer's recently and you'd not wish it on anyone

Yeah really sorry Brinty watched my father in law die that way last year, bloody awful disease.

Itssoeasy · 21-06-2019 3:58pm

Those new rules about PI being reviewable are going to create havoc at some point in the season to come.

The_Honeybadger · 21-06-2019 4:12pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Those new rules about PI being reviewable are going to create havoc at some point in the season to come.

Teams will still only have the same number of challenges though so impact should be limited. Bad PI calls can be huge in games, potentially moving the ball 30-40 yards in to the red zone with a fresh set of downs. There were a couple of big incidents at the end of the season where these calls went wrong and it effected the outcome of the game, the Saints non call being by far the most costly and obvious.

I haven’t looked at the specifics of the new rule but I think in principle it’s only right that they are reviewable.

Hazys · 21-06-2019 4:17pm

Its when you are in the 2 minute warning when everything is review-able that all hell will break loose. Every little touch of a defender on a receiver will be reviewed and whats to say a defender touching a receiver's arm with minimal contact is not the same as a defender touching a receiver's arm with strong contact? Its completely opened to interpretation. Pandora's box is opened again

Not to mention what will happen on Hail Marys.

The_Honeybadger · 21-06-2019 4:23pm

Hazys wrote: »

Its when you are in the 2 minute warning when everything is review-able that all hell will break loose. Every little touch of a defender on a receiver will be reviewed and whats to say a defender touching a receiver's arm with minimal contact is not the same as a defender touching a receiver's arm with strong contact? Its completely opened to interpretation. Pandora's box is opened again

Not to mention what will happen on Hail Marys.

It shouldn’t be any worse than it is already with holding calls, they won’t be reviewing every single play, is that really the proposal? I know scoring plays are reviewed as a matter of course.

Itssoeasy · 21-06-2019 4:34pm

The Hail Marys part they have said it won't be reviewable unless they see something they wouldn't normally see. That's easy for them to say in June but one officials interpretation isn't the same as another.

The_Honeybadger · 21-06-2019 4:37pm

Yes consistency is the problem. Once there is a bit of common sense used by the officials there is no reason for it to become a major issue though.

Coaches will still only have the same number of challenges as before and if it prevents another Saints incident where a team is arguably robbed of a Super Bowl spot then I’m all for it.

Itssoeasy · 21-06-2019 5:33pm

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Yes consistency is the problem. Once there is a bit of common sense used by the officials there is no reason for it to become a major issue though.

Coaches will still only have the same number of challenges as before and if it prevents another Saints incident where a team is arguably robbed of a Super Bowl spot then I’m all for it.

But is it right to change whether a play is reviewable or not based on one(albeit a shocking no call) ? We may not see a situation like the one last season this season. I think if there had been a number of similar non calls like it in the regular season then okay.

Also, if that no call between the rams and the saints had happened in any other game not the NFC championship game or super bowl would we have the rule change ? I don't think we would have. That's an issue I have.

The_Honeybadger · 21-06-2019 5:38pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

But is it right to change whether a play is reviewable or not based on one(albeit a shocking no call) ? We may not see a situation like the one last season this season. I think if there had been a number of similar non calls like it in the regular season then okay.

Also, if that no call between the rams and the saints had happened in any other game not the NFC championship game or super bowl would we have the rule change ? I don't think we would have. That's an issue I have.

Check out the one called on Joe Haden in Steelers @Saints late in the season. Just as bad and almost certainly cost the Steelers the game. They missed the playoffs by .5 of a game

eagle eye · 21-06-2019 6:20pm

Itssoeasy wrote:

But is it right to change whether a play is reviewable or not based on one(albeit a shocking no call) ? We may not see a situation like the one last season this season. I think if there had been a number of similar non calls like it in the regular season then okay.

It happens a lot every season in close games. The Saints/Rams one just brought huge media attention which forced them to act he it imo it's a good thing.
I understand that people are afraid it will open a Pandora's box but I don't think that will happen. I think you'll see something similar to college football and rugby where the review is called by replay officials.

The_Honeybadger · 21-06-2019 7:28pm

eagle eye wrote: »

It happens a lot every season in close games. The Saints/Rams one just brought huge media attention which forced them to act he it imo it's a good thing.
I understand that people are afraid it will open a Pandora's box but I don't think that will happen. I think you'll see something similar to college football and rugby where the review is called by replay officials.

That’s it. Too many games effected by bad calls and there is no need for it in the NFL when there are natural breaks in play and the officials have every imaginable angle available for review. I don’t think this will have a major impact on game flow any more than holding call reviews, and a bad PI call can be much more damaging than a holding one. This is a good move imo.

Itssoeasy · 21-06-2019 8:16pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote:

But is it right to change whether a play is reviewable or not based on one(albeit a shocking no call) ? We may not see a situation like the one last season this season. I think if there had been a number of similar non calls like it in the regular season then okay.

It happens a lot every season in close games. The Saints/Rams one just brought huge media attention which forced them to act he it imo it's a good thing.
I understand that people are afraid it will open a Pandora's box but I don't think that will happen. I think you'll see something similar to college football and rugby where the review is called by replay officials.

Instead of doing what they did would it not be better to balance up the whole area of pass interference ? It's ridiculously slanted towards the offensive side of the ball, and has been for years. Offensive pass interference is actually a penalty in the NFL rule book, but given who offence friendly the game has become it's not call even remotely as often as defensive pass interference. I'm worried not that it's a Pandora's box that will be opened, but more that by the end every tippy tappy thing will be reviewable, and we will have a pace of game issue like baseball has had.

The_Honeybadger · 21-06-2019 9:06pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Instead of doing what they did would it not be better to balance up the whole area of pass interference ? It's ridiculously slanted towards the offensive side of the ball, and has been for years. Offensive pass interference is actually a penalty in the NFL rule book, but given who offence friendly the game has become it's not call even remotely as often as defensive pass interference. I'm worried not that it's a Pandora's box that will be opened, but more that by the end every tippy tappy thing will be reviewable, and we will have a pace of game issue like baseball has had.

The rules are and their application are very definitely slanted in favour of the offence alright but that’s a separate issue really. How would changing anything there solve what happened with any of the bad calls discussed above? They are trying to stop incorrect calls ruining games. The only way to do that is with reviews.

Itssoeasy · 21-06-2019 9:24pm

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Instead of doing what they did would it not be better to balance up the whole area of pass interference ? It's ridiculously slanted towards the offensive side of the ball, and has been for years. Offensive pass interference is actually a penalty in the NFL rule book, but given who offence friendly the game has become it's not call even remotely as often as defensive pass interference. I'm worried not that it's a Pandora's box that will be opened, but more that by the end every tippy tappy thing will be reviewable, and we will have a pace of game issue like baseball has had.

The rules are and their application are very definitely slanted in favour of the offence alright but that’s a separate issue really. How would changing anything there solve what happened with any of the bad calls discussed above? They are trying to stop incorrect calls ruining games. The only way to do that is with reviews.

So they want to add another thing to be reviewable yet outside of the PI now being reviewable they can't bloody do the things that were reviewable before hand ? It's part of a bigger picture of the whole PI mess. The making it reviewable is just one part of a bigger conversation I personally think should happen with the league.

Itssoeasy · 21-06-2019 9:24pm

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Instead of doing what they did would it not be better to balance up the whole area of pass interference ? It's ridiculously slanted towards the offensive side of the ball, and has been for years. Offensive pass interference is actually a penalty in the NFL rule book, but given who offence friendly the game has become it's not call even remotely as often as defensive pass interference. I'm worried not that it's a Pandora's box that will be opened, but more that by the end every tippy tappy thing will be reviewable, and we will have a pace of game issue like baseball has had.

The rules are and their application are very definitely slanted in favour of the offence alright but that’s a separate issue really. How would changing anything there solve what happened with any of the bad calls discussed above? They are trying to stop incorrect calls ruining games. The only way to do that is with reviews.

So they want to add another thing to be reviewable yet outside of the PI now being reviewable they can't bloody do the things that were reviewable before hand ? It's part of a bigger picture of the whole PI mess. The making it reviewable is just one part of a bigger conversation I personally think should happen with the league.

The_Honeybadger · 21-06-2019 9:43pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So they want to add another thing to be reviewable yet outside of the PI now being reviewable they can't bloody do the things that were reviewable before hand ? It's part of a bigger picture of the whole PI mess. The making it reviewable is just one part of a bigger conversation I personally think should happen with the league.

Sorry I don’t follow when you say they can’t do the things that were reviewable beforehand?

I agree the rules are not perfect and there seems to be knee jerk changes based on things that happen in big games like last season they changed the catch rule after the Jesse James thing, this season it’s PI review.

At the end of the day the rules are going to be the same for both teams when they step on the field, it’s getting them effectively interpreted and implemented is where they often fall down and this change is a step in the right direction imo.

MrKingsley · 22-06-2019 3:16am

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Check out the one called on Joe Haden in Steelers @Saints late in the season. Just as bad and almost certainly cost the Steelers the game. They missed the playoffs by .5 of a game

The lack of discussion around this post makes me think that this is just being brought in because of a big call in a big play off game.

Now if this is going to lead to more correct decisions being made then I am all for it.

But what is the correct decision? And where will reviewing end? Yes we can all agree that the rams benefitted. But should the face mask on Goff previously be able to be reviewed? Does it only matter when the game is on the line?

(Not a rams fan by the way)

The_Honeybadger · 22-06-2019 8:20am

MrKingsley wrote: »

The lack of discussion around this post makes me think that this is just being brought in because of a big call in a big play off game.

Now if this is going to lead to more correct decisions being made then I am all for it.

But what is the correct decision? And where will reviewing end? Yes we can all agree that the rams benefitted. But should the face mask on Goff previously be able to be reviewed? Does it only matter when the game is on the line?

(Not a rams fan by the way)

There was plenty of discussion around it at the time, it happened during a prime time game and all of the analysts agreed it was a dreadful decision, the defender did not impede the player in any way and was actually too far off him to do so even if he wanted to. It was a third down so the saints were going to have to try a FG but the penalty moved the ball about 40 yards iirc to the goal line and the saints converted. I’m going to stop short of saying it cost the Steelers a playoff spot because they beat themselves on too many other occasions when the season was in their own hands but if they win that saints game as they should have they probably would have made the playoffs.

They also had multiple horrible decisions go against them when they played the Chargers at home a few weeks earlier in another narrow loss in one of the worst officiating performances I have ever seen since I started watching football you can read about it below. If there is a question mark over the saints one this is absolutely 100% the refs cost them the game and none of the incidents were reviewable so yes I am also all for anything that can stop this kind of thing happening on the field https://www.google.com/amp/s/247sports.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/ContentGallery/Steelers-refs-Chargers-officials-false-start-125796434/Amp/

I am sure fans of virtually every team have similar things go against them so I’m not trying to have a whinge, more point out the severity of the issue with the officiating from the POV of just one team. There is too much at stake for that to be happening if it can be helped

eagle eye · 24-06-2019 6:44pm

Julie Beth Ertz is a starting midfielder for the US Women's soccer team and a very good player too. She is the wife of Zach Ertz.

raze_them_all_ · 24-06-2019 7:20pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Julie Beth Ertz is a starting midfielder for the US Women's soccer team and a very good player too. She is the wife of Zach Ertz.

This is well known, they only mention it every second ertz play. Was all over when he won the super bowl

eagle eye · 24-06-2019 7:25pm

raze_them_all_ wrote:

This is well known, they only mention it every second ertz play. Was all over when he won the super bowl

I never knew and I watch more football than most people.

The_Honeybadger · 24-06-2019 7:31pm

Camera kept cutting to her in the crowd during their playoff game this year too. She is gorgeous as well as very talented obviously

Hazys · 24-06-2019 8:01pm

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

This is well known, they only mention it every second ertz play. Was all over when he won the super bowl

You'll never guess what college Ryan Fitzpatrick went to?

eagle eye · 24-06-2019 8:14pm

Hazys wrote:

You'll never guess what college Ryan Fitzpatrick went to?

Yeah, we all know that one.

raze_them_all_ · 24-06-2019 8:20pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I never knew and I watch more football than most people.

Did you ignore the sb run? They literally mentioned it 3-4 times a game. I think they even had one of those athlete body magazine covers or something like that. Edit for link

https://mobile.twitter.com/BriLuke14/status/879129293242216449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-27514825133615695556.ampproject.net%2F1906111828200%2Fframe.html

eagle eye · 24-06-2019 8:44pm

raze_them_all_ wrote:

Did you ignore the sb run? They literally mentioned it 3-4 times a game. I think they even had one of those athlete body magazine covers or something like that. Edit for link

It's possible that I just tune it all out. I'm not into sports media, just sports. I'm very good.at tuning out when they start to go on about stuff which I don't think is relevant to the sport.

24-06-2019 10:25pm

There was an onion article saying world cup champions husband wins regional tournament

BaronVon · 25-06-2019 3:42pm

Hazys wrote: »

You'll never guess what college Ryan Fitzpatrick went to?

And Chris Hogan played Lacrosse in college........:D

el Fenomeno · 25-06-2019 6:25pm

What round was Tom Brady selected in again?

eagle eye · 25-06-2019 7:14pm

el Fenomeno wrote:

What round was Tom Brady selected in again?

What pick was he???

VillaMad · 25-06-2019 7:43pm

11th pick in the Draft for the Cincinnati Bengals, OT Jonah Williams has had left shoulder surgery to repair a torn labrum. He is ruled out for the whole of the 2019 season.

Horrible luck for the Bengals.

Itssoeasy · 26-06-2019 11:57am

VillaMad wrote: »

11th pick in the Draft for the Cincinnati Bengals, OT Jonah Williams has had left shoulder surgery to repair a torn labrum. He is ruled out for the whole of the 2019 season.

Horrible luck for the Bengals.

I watched total access and they had a graphic about non of the bengals first round pick since 2015 have played a full season. So different coaching staff, same bad luck.

Also, I agree with joe theisman about having Dwayne Haskins starting week 1 would not be good for him as it could have lasting damage to him both physically and mentally.

eagle eye · 26-06-2019 11:59am

Itssoeasy wrote:

Also, I agree with joe theisman about having Dwayne Haskins starting week 1 would not be good for him as it could have lasting damage to him both physically and mentally.

Why would him starting be any different to any other rookie QB?

Guffy · 26-06-2019 12:50pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Why would him starting be any different to any other rookie QB?

Tbf I think the same is said for any other rookie qb bar the "generational" ones. Some just don't have the situation to allow them to sit

eagle eye · 26-06-2019 12:53pm

Guffy wrote:

Tbf I think the same is said for any other rookie qb bar the "generational" ones. Some just don't have the situation to allow them to sit

Well I think he is a generational one.

Christy42 · 26-06-2019 1:22pm

Guffy wrote: »

Tbf I think the same is said for any other rookie qb bar the "generational" ones. Some just don't have the situation to allow them to sit

I think all QBs are better served holding back for a year. Might not be best for the coach/team which is why it doesn't happen. It can also make it harder to pick out a dud without game time.

Some are good enough to make it regardless after a bit but I am not sure they wouldn't be better off had they had a year of professional training first.

Guffy · 26-06-2019 1:28pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I think he is a generational one.

Ok...

I just answered your question as to Why it is different to any other rookie qb.

It's not. It's generally said about all rookie Qbs

Foxtrol · 26-06-2019 2:36pm

Christy42 wrote: »

I think all QBs are better served holding back for a year. Might not be best for the coach/team which is why it doesn't happen. It can also make it harder to pick out a dud without game time.

Some are good enough to make it regardless after a bit but I am not sure they wouldn't be better off had they had a year of professional training first.

I lean the other way. If you’ve spent an early pick on a QB and he’s the best QB on your roster, I generally don’t see the benefit of sitting them for a year. They’ll learn a lot more from seeing live in game action and practicing with the starters than a season spent mostly on the training field with the backups.

Obviously is they’re struggling to get up the playbook or can’t physically/mentally take the damage of the NFL in year 1 then they shouldn’t be put in that position, but then I’d also argue why the team spent an early pick on them.

Christy42 · 26-06-2019 3:42pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

I lean the other way. If you’ve spent an early pick on a QB and he’s the best QB on your roster, I generally don’t see the benefit of sitting them for a year. They’ll learn a lot more from seeing live in game action and practicing with the starters than a season spent mostly on the training field with the backups.

Obviously is they’re struggling to get up the playbook or can’t physically/mentally take the damage of the NFL in year 1 then they shouldn’t be put in that position, but then I’d also argue why the team spent an early pick on them.

Aaron Rodgers was a good pick and didn't play for some time. I have no issue spending an early pick on a qb that sits for a year or two and then gives 15 great years. Not that I get any picks to use admittedly.

They can mix in and out with the starters in training. Their development should be a focus (if the team really believes they will work). They will likely be the back up and so will need to be heavily involved in the game plan.

1 year is also arbitrary. It will depend on the qb and the schemes they are used to as to how long you are willing to invest/how long they need on the sidelines.

The requirement for performance now seems to stop them getting a proper chance to iron out some bugs in their system.

Foxtrol · 26-06-2019 4:08pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Aaron Rodgers was a good pick and didn't play for some time. I have no issue spending an early pick on a qb that sits for a year or two and then gives 15 great years. Not that I get any picks to use admittedly.

Few people would say Rodgers was the best QB on that roster when he was drafted, which was a caveat to my post.

They can mix in and out with the starters in training. Their development should be a focus (if the team really believes they will work). They will likely be the back up and so will need to be heavily involved in the game plan.

With the limited number of practices there is little time to give backup QBs much time with the starters, especially when they aren’t expected to see game time or the team is in contention. They can shadow the game plan process but teams aren’t going to build one around them, like they would if the rookie was the starter.

1 year is also arbitrary. It will depend on the qb and the schemes they are used to as to how long you are willing to invest/how long they need on the sidelines.

The requirement for performance now seems to stop them getting a proper chance to iron out some bugs in their system.

They can iron out some bugs but then in year 2 (or whenever they’re dropped in) they’re basically rookies who then have to get up to speed with live NFL action. It’s a year of ironing out bugs vs a year of NFL experience and a QB that can help the team while on their rookie deal.

I don’t see how your claim that ‘all QBs are better served’, even looking just at last year do you really feel all of Mayfield, Allen, Darnold would be in a better situation going into next season if they had never had a snap last season?

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Comments