2023 NFL Discussion

[btownqb]

33 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

 

The approach he took on the goal to go series I outlined in the post I'm quoting was highly questionable.  And, in the end, it cost the Bengals the game.  

What he was able to do last season was great, but this is this year.  The offense is struggling a bit and the things that worked so well in the playoff run last season are not working well now.

At what point in Football history did we determine it was easier to get 2 yards by passing 4 times versus at least trying to run the ball?

If a team is unable to run straight ahead for 2 yards over the course of 4 tries, you, better than anyone else,  knows how effective well designed run plays with misdirection built-in can be.  The high school team you coach is fantastic at that.

What Branden Staley did in the Chargers/Browns game was dumb as well, but he got bailed out by a missed FG.

My thing.. I believe, the Bengals lack of execution in redzone and goal to go opportunities was worse to far worse than any play calling deficiencies.

[5fouls]

9 minutes ago, btownqb said:

My thing.. I believe, the Bengals lack of execution in redzone and goal to go opportunities was worse to far worse than any play calling deficiencies.

If you were coaching a team, playing in what could ultimately be a critical game against your strongest and most dangerous divisional opponent, would you call a WR pass off a double reverse on 2nd and goal from the 2?

I personally would have at least tried to run the ball on either 1st or 2nd down.  Would have definitely ran on third down (under the assumption I am, at worst, on the 2 and not the 15 because of a failed WR pass).

If I'm still not in (but I bet I am), I kick the FG to tie on 4th down.  Later in the game, I may go for the win, but kicking the FG at that point, minimizes the risk of a loss.

Edited October 10, 2022 by 5fouls

[btownqb]

1 minute ago, 5fouls said:

If you were coaching a team, playing in what could ultimately be a critical game against your strongest and most dangerous divisional opponent, would you call a WR pass off a double reverse on 2nd and goal from the 2?

I personally would have at least tried to run the ball on either 1st or 2nd down.  Would have definitely ran on third down (under the assumption I am, at worst, on the 2 and not the 15 because of a failed WR pass).

If I'm still not in (but I bet I am), I kick the FG to tie on 4th down.  Later in the game, I may go for the win, but kicking the FG at that point, minimizes the risk of a loss.

Philly called a reverse pass in the SUPER BOWL!! They executed!! 

[Steubenhoosier]

The penalty on Jarrett for roughing the passer, and the decision to pull Bridgewater out of the game after one snap with no evidence that he was impaired, suggests that the league is overreacting to the Tua situation.

Football is a violent sport. I’m all for player safety but they’ve gotta let these guys play.

[KoB2011]

18 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

If you were coaching a team, playing in what could ultimately be a critical game against your strongest and most dangerous divisional opponent, would you call a WR pass off a double reverse on 2nd and goal from the 2?

I personally would have at least tried to run the ball on either 1st or 2nd down.  Would have definitely ran on third down (under the assumption I am, at worst, on the 2 and not the 15 because of a failed WR pass).

If I'm still not in (but I bet I am), I kick the FG to tie on 4th down.  Later in the game, I may go for the win, but kicking the FG at that point, minimizes the risk of a loss.

The only thing I'll agree with you on is that I don't like trick plays inside the 5, with the possible exception of 4th down or a two-point conversion. Having said that, Boyd has to throw that ball at Burrows feet and move on. 

EDIT: But didn't you say misdirection should have been used a few posts up? Is that not what a double reverse is? 

Edited October 10, 2022 by KoB2011

[KoB2011]

10 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

The penalty on Jarrett for roughing the passer, and the decision to pull Bridgewater out of the game after one snap with no evidence that he was impaired, suggests that the league is overreacting to the Tua situation.

Football is a violent sport. I’m all for player safety but they’ve gotta let these guys play.

So you're all for player safety, but you've got to let guys play with a potential head injury when we just saw how catastrophic doing that can be? 

[rico]

Panthers fire Matt Rhule.

[5fouls]

2 minutes ago, rico said:

Panthers fire Matt Rhule.

Unfortunately, a new coach likely will not be able to make Baker Mayfield a better QB.

[Parakeet Jones]

6 minutes ago, rico said:

Panthers fire Matt Rhule.

Some college will pay big time for him. Hopefully it’s not Nebraska or Wisconsin. 

[rico]

6 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Unfortunately, a new coach likely will not be able to make Baker Mayfield a better QB.

Seems like Baker went from hero to zero in a nanno second.

[rico]

5 minutes ago, Parakeet Jones said:

Some college will pay big time for him. Hopefully it’s not Nebraska or Wisconsin. 

Be nice if it was us....

[5fouls]

Lamar was thrown to the ground last night on a roll-out much more forcefully than Brady was yesterday and nothing was called.  Nor, was any call expected.

There are 30 starting QBs in the NFL, hundreds of starting QBs in college, and thousands of starting QBs in high school. 

Only one of those gets the call we saw in the Falcons/Bucs game.  

 

 

[rico]

1 minute ago, 5fouls said:

Lamar was thrown to the ground last night on a roll-out much more forcefully than Brady was yesterday and nothing was called.  Nor, was any call expected.

There are 30 starting QBs in the NFL, hundreds of starting QBs in college, and thousands of starting QBs in high school. 

Only one of those gets the call we saw in the Falcons/Bucs game.  

 

 

I was waiting for the flag when Lamar got "thrown" down.

[Steubenhoosier]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

So you're all for player safety, but you've got to let guys play with a potential head injury when we just saw how catastrophic doing that can be? 

Who had the head injury?

[IUaic]

12 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Who had the head injury?

Tua

[KoB2011]

23 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

Who had the head injury?

Bridgewater had a potential head injury. I still haven't seen a video of the stumble that led to him being ruled out (would love to if someone has it), but I have no issue with guys getting held out for that moving forward after what happened to Tua. 

I'll ask again, are you all for player safety or no? 

[Steubenhoosier]

7 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Bridgewater had a potential head injury. I still haven't seen a video of the stumble that led to him being ruled out (would love to if someone has it), but I have no issue with guys getting held out for that moving forward after what happened to Tua. 

I'll ask again, are you all for player safety or no? 

I am for player safety. 

A new rule was put into place Saturday afternoon, approved by both the league and the NFLPA. Bridgewater was ruled out because some "spotter" sitting up in a press box thought he saw him waiver. Per the new rule, regardless of the facts, if this spotter makes the declaration, the player is automatically pulled from the game. In this instance, neither the league, nor CBS who was airing the game had anything on film to validate the spotter's actions. This was the first play, in the first game after a rule was implemented less than 24 hours previously. 

As I said in my original post, imo this was an overreaction without any justification behind it.

Read Peter King's column this week--FMIA. He's as connected to the league as any writer I know. I am pretty much quoting what he says about it.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Steubenhoosier

[NotIThatLives]

11 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Bridgewater had a potential head injury. I still haven't seen a video of the stumble that led to him being ruled out (would love to if someone has it), but I have no issue with guys getting held out for that moving forward after what happened to Tua. 

I'll ask again, are you all for player safety or no? 

Are you for player safety?

Is mma too violent and dangerous for it's willing and paid participants?  Are we saying football is too violent or they aren't compensated fairly for the risks involved?  It's the modern day roman coliseum games to me.  Entertainment.  I want entertained.  

 

[KoB2011]

24 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

I am for player safety. 

A new rule was put into place Saturday afternoon, approved by both the league and the NFLPA. Bridgewater was ruled out because some "spotter" sitting up in a press box thought he saw him waiver. Per the new rule, regardless of the facts, if this spotter makes the declaration, the player is automatically pulled from the game. In this instance, neither the league, nor CBS who was airing the game had anything on film to validate the spotter's actions. This was the first play, in the first game after a rule was implemented less than 24 hours previously. 

As I said in my original post, imo this was an overreaction without any justification behind it.

Read Peter King's column this week--FMIA. He's as connected to the league as any writer I know. I am pretty much quoting what he says about it.

How can you call something an overreaction when you didn't even see it? The point of the rule isn't to be 100% right tin removing players from the game, it's to make sure they don't leave players in the game when they shouldn't. 

Short of seeing a video of what the spotter saw I'm not sure how we can say he overreacted to what Bridgewater did, and I haven't seen the Dolphins claim Bridgewater didn't stumble.

Perhaps the spotter rushed to judgement, but perhaps that's exactly what you're doing. We simply don't know. 

[KoB2011]

14 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

Are you for player safety? Yes

Is mma too violent and dangerous for it's willing and paid participants? IMO, yes, but it's a different discussion than football.  Are we saying football is too violent or they aren't compensated fairly for the risks involved? Sometimes, yes, that is a fair take. It's the modern day roman coliseum games to me.  Entertainment.  I want entertained. Congrats? Football entertains me too but I still want it safe for the players when possible. 

 

 

[Steubenhoosier]

2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

How can you call something an overreaction when you didn't even see it? The point of the rule isn't to be 100% right tin removing players from the game, it's to make sure they don't leave players in the game when they shouldn't. 

Short of seeing a video of what the spotter saw I'm not sure how we can say he overreacted to what Bridgewater did, and I haven't seen the Dolphins claim Bridgewater didn't stumble.

Perhaps the spotter rushed to judgement, but perhaps that's exactly what you're doing. We simply don't know. 

When there is no video showing any injury, when ESPN reported he passed all concussion protocol tests, then yes, I believe he overreacted. In this instance, the spotter has not come out with any proof to substantiate his decision. The Tua incident has made the league jumpy, for fear of lawsuit. I believe that players need to be protected, oftentimes from themselves. I also think there should have been some training and a lead time before this rule was actually put into place so that the spotters were provided better guidelines to follow.

[BobSaccamanno]

Speaking of safety, the Thursday games are poorly devised.  I did not invent the idea, but I think they should have two bye weeks.  Every team plays one Thursday per year and both teams get a bye the week before.  Then you would also get ten days afterward.  

Football is brutal on the body.  Building in two separate byes separated out for recuperation is a no-brainer.  

With CTE, people's lives are wrecked.  Look at a guy like Junior Seau, a truly great player, killing himself.  It's a tragedy.  Look at Antonio Brown.  I am not a doctor, but what are the chances he has CTE with all that erratic behavior.  

More than anything with Tua, you'd hate to see him get CTE.  I guess he is seeing five different other experts so he is under good care.  But that has to be taken care of.

I love the NFL.  Love the product.  But I am less impressed with ownership.  And the NFLPA started screaming but they agreed to the protocol, and it turns out that the Dolphins met protocol.  So the NFLPA is hardly innocent.  Yeah, they addressed it now using blunt force, but it still looks poorly devised without much margin for subtlety. 

Also, in terms of misdirection, people love to say, and take for granted that players need to be protected from themselves.  That's a mistake.  The players need to be educated about CTE.  They need to take individual responsibility and be taught about it.  Ultimately, a lot depends on the players' input and what they say about how they feel and what they answer.

Lastly, its easy to say that a player can't play. The problem with that is this a player's livelihood.  It's easy to sit a guy, and they clearly overshot yesterday.  The problem is that a player may lose an opportunity and shot.  The answer is more sophisticated analysis. 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by BobSaccamanno

[BobSaccamanno]

Also regarding the safety of QB's, I totally don't agree with the people complaining that we should put them in skirts.  They are put in a position where they are stationary targets that can be brutalized.  A safety or LB is never just standing there ready to get smashed.  The QB has to look downfield while he is getting rushed and make a play.  

The tackle on Brady was benign.  The hit where the Bengal guy rag dolled Tua where he he couldn't protect himself was far more egregious.  

[KoB2011]

36 minutes ago, Steubenhoosier said:

When there is no video showing any injury, when ESPN reported he passed all concussion protocol tests, then yes, I believe he overreacted. In this instance, the spotter has not come out with any proof to substantiate his decision. The Tua incident has made the league jumpy, for fear of lawsuit. I believe that players need to be protected, oftentimes from themselves. I also think there should have been some training and a lead time before this rule was actually put into place so that the spotters were provided better guidelines to follow.

So he passed all the on-field tests that Tua passed, that led to them implementing the spotter that could remove people?

For the record, you're the one claiming the spotter acted in error when there is no evidence that happened. Even the Dolphins haven't claimed that to my knowledge. 

[Steubenhoosier]

10 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

So he passed all the on-field tests that Tua passed, that led to them implementing the spotter that could remove people?

For the record, you're the one claiming the spotter acted in error when there is no evidence that happened. Even the Dolphins haven't claimed that to my knowledge. 

You really think that the team that caused this whole thing to come about so quickly is going to publicly speak out against the league and the new rule? You really think they are that stupid?

For the record, there is no evidence to point to Bridgewater being impaired. No tape, to tests, no doctor's report, nothing. My claim is that the league rushed to put something in place due to the negative publicity surrounding the whole issue, that they provided no training to the spotters to ensure this was done properly, and that the spotter in question was a little ambitious in his interpretation of the new rule. Whether he was in error or not, neither you or I know. I am hoping the league puts some guidelines in place so that this doesn't happen again.