National Football League

[FoxxyBrown1111]

• League integrity it relative. Probably less than the NCAA Division 2. Probably more than Track & Field (Athletics).

I´d agree. We can´t know if NFL has more integretiy than IAAF. But most cetainly less than NCAA div II. No doubt...

• The Raiders leading the league and having more odd penalties (ie, tuck rule) go against them was probably not happenstance, no.

Good. I thought I saw ghosts.
BTW: They really led or were near the top in pens for over +two decades now. How high is the chance this being random? 0.00000000000001 % ?

• Brock was correct, best to least best is miniscule. Hence, if they played and tried (and nothing strange happened in the game) the Tampa Bay Buccaneers would beat Ohio State about 63-0. But that same Bucs team lost to Atlanta 56-14 in week 3, then beat the Steelers the following week, in Pittsburgh. The ball bounces in peculiar ways.

Admit you are right here. One day you lose by 50, another you win by 50. You never know how the ball bounces. You simply can´t keep a game close when being in big minus in turnover differential...
But it´s whole other story when team 1 owns team 2 (incl. best ever offense!) of the league in every aspect (trenches, WR-play, defense, offense, special teams) of the game. How was the old LA saying? The story is too beautiful to be true, or something like that...

Sure, we had other SB blow-outs. But the one blowing off the other was about to come (SF vs DEN, WSH vs BUF, CHI vs NE for example) because the team winning was one of the best ever (IOW: one side perfect, the other at least good), or about a major TO differential (example DAL-BUF 52-17).

The suspect blow-outs (SEA-DEN, TB-OAK) were about having the advantage of knowing what is coming while fielding a one sided team only... in the SEA case some more (just see above)

• Knowing another team's signals is an advantage, though I doubt Seattle knew them all, all game long. But it helped. Otherwise, they may have only won 34-20, like I said.

Yeah a 7 point game was about the max. Add in the PM factor, 34-20 sounds reasonable... But not a 43-8 blow-out (even when knowing plays/calls), because, as I said, team 1 owned team 2 in every aspect. Is SEA 2013 the greatest ever in all sports, having field the 45 best players of the NFL? Or is there more about it?

• I'm aware of the discussion about Seattle holding. They were also the most penalized team in the NFL last year.

Yes. But as I linked one article last year: The advantage to hold trou-out is still massive, even if the team is penalized here and there...
In short words: You illegal hold 30 times, and get called 10 times, you have 20 positive plays vs 10 negative (very simplistic description, to just drive the point home)... Yes I know DEN used the receivers pick plays. But it seems defensive holding is more effective.

• Strength and overall talent do have something to do with it, but not everything, or Jamarcus Russell would be in the HOF.

Ok, Russell wasn´t giving it all... But we can assume that detication and talent between last years two SB teams were at least equal (one team with a great O and good D vs the great D with the ... well ... let´s say average O).

Certain, no. But you did discuss it. Though it was definitely cemented after the game. And it came to true fruition in this year's divisional game. Thigh injury or not, he couldn't even complete short, simple passes to open receivers. There was more to it than injury, lest Ostweiller would have been playing.

Before last season I had written PM off (as you all know). Then last years season seemed to be the one even choking PM couldn´t spoil. The O was so far ahead of others that even a choke could have had DEN prevail. Only after the game (more correctly after the first DEN snap) I knew PM can´t do it. He melts, no matter how good his team (BTW: This year DEN was No 1 in D-Pass. Still not enough to bail out PM). What a choker...

And Sherman is right here: DEN should have adjusted. Even that PM couldn´t manage. Plan A, or no plan. What a choker in all aspects...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

P.S.: Let´s see how this SB unfolds. If it indeed goes like 24-3, we shall assume SEA has some (illegal) advantage others don´t have. Can´t be only holding since this year the rules are stricter...

May in 5 years we know more. May something like Spygate will come out. Only in a different matter. Maybe the most sophisticated cheating system in sports. Who knows?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

ANY coach will tell a player who complains about holding that he does not want to hear those excuses. Holding is going to happen, it happens every play by offensive linemen or defensive players, and much of it is not called. So what's a player to do? If the coach won't listen, they player can notify officials to watch so-and-so's holding, but outside of that what's left? Well, the Player being held has to go on the offensive.

Take WR Jermaine Kearse for example. Defenders often try to get their hands on him to slow him down or disrupt the catch. He will either hack at the defenders arm or give a little stiff arm after the defender has made the initial infraction, so that way he is not as likely to get called for offensive PI. If the WR does his job well, then the defender has to either back off or get more aggressive, which could end up in a defensive holding call.

On the offensive side, ever since the line blocking rules were changed to allow OL to extend their arms away from their chest, holding by the OL has turned into an art form (well, it also was before that). But so defensive linemen also had to adjust. No longer was pure quickness, explosiveness off the line, and agility (e.g. Vikes Alan Page anyone?) enough. Coaches now always stress to defensive linemen the importance of not letting the blocker get his hands and forearms into the DLineman's upper body, using punches, rips, and swim moves to keep from getting grabbed. It's always a fist fight in the trenches. A sneaky OL move is to sneak the hand up inside the DLineman's chest and literally latch onto the front collar of the shoulder pads, which makes for a great hand hold, but then let go if the blocker's arm becomes a bit outstretched. Great DAL DLineman Randy White used to take karate lessons to learn how to swat away a blocker's arm(s). Done with quickness and power makes for quite a loud slap that can be heard far away from the sideline. So if a defender comes to the sideline complaining about holding, not only is he not going to get much sympathy from the coach, he might be told to execute the rips, swims, and chops better. Then that puts the blocker in the position of having to be less discrete, a move that he may get caught on.

The bottom line, holding is actually part of the game, like it or not. Players just have to deal with it.

 

[Merckx index]

Yes. But as I linked one article last year: The advantage to hold trou-out is still massive, even if the team is penalized here and there...
In short words: You illegal hold 30 times, and get called 10 times, you have 20 positive plays vs 10 negative (very simplistic description, to just drive the point home)... Yes I know DEN used the receivers pick plays. But it seems defensive holding is more effective.

This is why I don't think there's anything unusual about the Raiders having all those penalties. I'm surprised you don't see this. If for every penalty called there are several that are missed, it might be to the advantage of a team to play aggressively. They lead the league in penalties, but also lead the league in fouls gotten away with. I think this was intentional on the part of the Raiders, not a result of the NFL wanting to punish them. Even if the NFL did want to, I can't believe every referee would go along with it. Some, maybe, but not all.

It may be true the Raiders were heavily penalized under several different coaches, but as I'm sure you well know, Davis was the de facto coach throughout that period. Maybe he didn't determine the detailed game strategy, but any overall general approach, like playing aggressively, pushing the penalty envelope, that would have come from him. I think he just figured out, or estimated, that the team would be better off on average if they played at the edge of the rules.

As far as SE blowing out Denver, up until that game, this era had been known for its close, competitive SBs. Before last year, when was the last really lopsided game? TB-Raiders. All of NE's five SBs have been close, and the two losses to the Giants were among the most dramatic ever. Same with Pitt-AZ and SF-Ravens. Almost every recent SB has been competitive until late in the 4th quarter.

Compare that to the 1980s. Almost every SB in that decade was lop-sided. There were five blowouts in a row from 1983-1987 seasons, and another in 1989. There was only one SB in the entire decade that was a real cliff-hanger, SF-Cincy in 1988-89.

I think an awful lot of that is just random. I have no idea how much fixing is going on, but given all the randomness, I wouldn't look at individual outcomes for evidence. Too much statistical noise. Why was DE-SE so much more competitive this year than in the SB? You think it's all down to Manning playing better under less pressure? I don't. DE had a better defense this year, but their offense was not quite as good.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Holding goes on in every play in the trenches. That is true since forever. No doubt. I was just pointing out when Oldman (God rest his soul!) declared no holding happened in the SEA winning drive ...

When I talk about holding, you guys know what holding I mean: Defensive holding on receivers that happens in the front of the refs, not hidden in fights between ten men at the line of scrimmage.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

This is why I don't think there's anything unusual about the Raiders having all those penalties. I'm surprised you don't see this. If for every penalty called there are several that are missed, it might be to the advantage of a team to play aggressively. They lead the league in penalties, but also lead the league in fouls gotten away with. I think this was intentional on the part of the Raiders, not a result of the NFL wanting to punish them. Even if the NFL did want to, I can't believe every referee would go along with it. Some, maybe, but not all.

It may be true the Raiders were heavily penalized under several different coaches, but as I'm sure you well know, Davis was the de facto coach throughout that period. Maybe he didn't determine the detailed game strategy, but any overall general approach, like playing aggressively, pushing the penalty envelope, that would have come from him. I think he just figured out, or estimated, that the team would be better off on average if they played at the edge of the rules.

That is a great argument. OTOH, they started leading in pens when they started to not win SBs anymore.
Either way, it´s a good argument. I admit.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I think an awful lot of that is just random. I have no idea how much fixing is going on, but given all the randomness, I wouldn't look at individual outcomes for evidence. Too much statistical noise. Why was DE-SE so much more competitive this year than in the SB? You think it's all down to Manning playing better under less pressure? I don't. DE had a better defense this year, but their offense was not quite as good.

Yes, yes... I was just pointing out the blow-outs that were about to come, and those that were suspicious.

OFC there are a lot of suspicious close games too. A blow-out or non-blow-out is no sign of a fix and/or cheating (better).
To clarify: What makes the SEA blow-out suspicious to me is how it happened. Dominating all aspects from snap one. Seldom you see that happening between team 1 beating team 32. Leave alone between team 1 and team 2...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Getting tired of talking about Super Bowl's past, so here's some current thoughts on the upcoming game.

Why I think this may be a fairly low scoring game is for a few reasons. First, I think Green Bay's offense is better than New England's. They have a better OL, better QB (most of the time), and better receivers (sans Gronk), and a better star RB in Lacy. Though NE's platoon of RB's equals him. However, Belicheck is a superior coach to Mike McCarthy, and takes more risks. As I noted before, I expect New England to try to run Blount a lot through the tackles, even if they don't have GB's OL, and a lot of passes to Gronk when he's not doubled up. I anticipate Seattle greatly slowing down Edleman and Amondola, Seattle is very hard to just throw dink and dunk passes against, getting 5-10 yard passes every down. They don't give those plays up with enough consistency for an offense to game plan with it. If any coach can create a new game plan not using many key plays like that they used all season, it's one by Belicheck (and McDaniels).

Flipping that around, outside of a good LB core, the Packers defense is pretty average. The Patriot defense is better, with some better big play defenders, especially Revis, though Browner is quite good. They can be scored upon, but they aren't rag tag like they were in recent years. This means I think Seattle is going to have a hard time sustaining drives. They will get some, but I see some 3 and out's as well. Both Carolina and especially Green Bay did a great job keeping a spy on Russell Wilson, and I expect New England to do the same. It puts pressure on the Seattle receivers to get open if the initial route is closed down. Can they? That may be the game.

As Foxxy points out, things like turnovers, mistakes, can make big differences in close games. They can also be random. TV announcers love to talk about turnover ratio, but it's really a crap shoot. Russell Wilson had maybe his worst game last week against GB, though some of the picks weren't his fault. One could look at NE's defense and assume he'll do worse. But I don't think so. He's extremely adaptable and a great student. I expect him to go back to the mean, and play a typical above average game, like usual.

As to injuries, it appears both teams are a little dinged up, but nothing major. Questions around Seattle were tempered by Pete Carroll. Earl Thomas missed a few practices but is now back on the field and Carroll says he'll be fine. Richard Sherman missed no time. Lineman Britt and Sweezy had limited practice, but Carroll said both could play today, if the game were today. Dime back Jeron Johnson who missed the last month is now practicing as well. The Patriots have several players listed as questionable, or probable, that will play. Browner and Hightower the biggest names who are a little banged up, but expected to play at full strength. No more reports out of NE. As you know, Belicheck reveals little about injuries.

Belicheck gave his most rambling analysis of Deflategate yet. And in doing so, may have deflected much away from what happened, onto him. Sort of like running out the clock.

 

[Merckx index]

It appears the NFL is not going to sanction the Patriots for the deflated balls, mainly because they can’t prove it was intentional. Belichick's explanation is that a) rubbing the balls to get the texture right affects the air inside (BS); and b) the balls lose pressure when taken out into cold weather. The latter is true. In fact, I would have thought this was obvious to anyone who lives in a cold weather climate—your car and bike tires get a little soft in cold weather—and for just this reason, I would have assumed someone in the NFL would be smart enough to specify the balls be inflated outside, at the ambient temperature. Remember, sometimes it gets much colder for football games than it was at Foxboro. It was close to 0 F (-18 C) at the SF-GB WC game last year, which would mean balls inflated at room temperature would lose nearly 4 psi. You think that wouldn’t be obvious? And Rodgers has said he likes balls with high pressure.

But no one AFAIK has come out and said that NFL definitely does or does not inflate at room temperature. I can’t believe how incompetent the NFL is not to make a definitive statement of this. If they inflate outside, it establishes once and for all that the NE balls were tampered with. If they inflate inside, they have to explain why the Colts’ balls were OK (and were they in the required range, or had they lost some pressure, but not 2 psi?), and they also have to explain what they do in much colder games, which do occur almost every year during the regular season. Do they really let the balls lose 3-4 psi? Seriously?

Anyway, if the balls were inflated at room temperature, around 68-72 F or 20-22 C, then they would lose about 1.3 psi when transferred to 45 F (7 C), which seems to be what the temperature was at half time. To lose 2 psi, the temperature would have to be about 32 F (0 C), or alternatively, the balls would have to be inflated at about 90 F (32 F).

If the NFL were a half-way competent organization, they would a) specify exactly the psi of every game ball, both the Pats' and the Colts; b) specify the temperature at which the balls were inflated, and the temperature at which they were tested at half time (if they inflate the balls indoors, how do we know the balls were not taken back indoors to be tested?); and c) explain how they prevent balls from becoming really soft in really cold weather games.

Edit: The Patriots not only have the lowest fumble rate in the NFL, it's not even remotely close. They are only the third team in the last 25 years not to lose a fumble at home, and they ran far more offensive plays than the other two. Their average number of plays per lost fumble, 187, is several standard deviations above the NFL average, their rate for the past five years is better than any other team's rate for one year during that period.

Why? A deflated ball would help. They didn't used to be this way. It seems they suddenly started hanging on to the ball with amazing consistency not long after Spygate broke. Hmmm...Looking for a new way to cheat?

******

Josh Gordon failed another drug test--alcohol. I guess the condition of his DUI sanction was that he couldn't drink. So he gets another full season suspension, not one that is likely to be changed this time. Can the Browns afford a WR that is never able to play? Bad news for Manziel, as if he didn't have enough to worry about already.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

More on soft balls: Bill Nye The Science Guy has refuted Belichick's "scientific" explanation of how the balls got deflated, implying the only way the balls could have deflated is if it was done manually. (B/R LINK)

Here is another one Foxxy and some others will love: about hypocrisy in the NFL League office. Most of us probably know by now the League has fined Marshawn Lynch for the "crotch grab", and says that any crotch grab by Lynch in the SB will result in a 15-yard unsportsmanlike penalty against SEA. For the record, I am not a fan of the crotch grab, and would like to see an end to it. But what I hate is the league's hypocrisy evidenced by the fact the NFL is selling photos of Lynch doing the crotch grab.

B/R LINK

SBnation LINK

http://www.nflshop.com//Seattle_Seahawks_2014_NFC_Champions_Framed_20_x_24_Collage_with_Piece_of_Game-Used_Football_-_Limited_Edition_of_100/source/ak1944nfl-pla-2015287?003=14180831&CS_010=2015287

OH, but the NFL is out of stock.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

That's hilarious! Well, sort of.

If there's one thing to remember about this entire Deflategate thing people are ignoring, it's this: The deflated balls were (reportedly) only in the 1st half of the game. In the 2nd half, the balls were normal. During that second half, New England outscored Indianapolis 28-0.

 

[Oldman]

That's hilarious! Well, sort of.

If there's one thing to remember about this entire Deflategate thing people are ignoring, it's this: The deflated balls were (reportedly) only in the 1st half of the game. In the 2nd half, the balls were normal. During that second half, New England outscored Indianapolis 28-0.

So, by Foxxy's current reasoning it's clear the NFL fixed the 2nd half by handling Brady's balls?
That's just wrong.

 

[Merckx index]

If there's one thing to remember about this entire Deflategate thing people are ignoring, it's this: The deflated balls were (reportedly) only in the 1st half of the game. In the 2nd half, the balls were normal. During that second half, New England outscored Indianapolis 28-0.

I don't know anyone who is ignoring that. The point is not that the Patriots won because they cheated, but that they cheated (if they knowingly deflated the balls). Period. Whether cheating helps you win or not is irrelevant. We all know cyclists who tested positive, yet their doping didn’t necessarily allow them to do that well in some race.

You cheat to get an edge. You don’t know in advance whether or not you will need that edge, or if it will be enough. All you know for sure is that it gives you a better chance.

Meanwhile, it appears that the Pats may have their fall guy, a locker room attendant who allegedly moved the balls to another location after they were inflated. It's not yet known what else he did, but speculation is rife that he will admit to deflating the balls. That an attendant would act on his own to deflate the balls, without telling Brady or Belichick, is about as believable as the one who supposedly acted on his own for USC back in 2010, saving Lane Kiffin’s rear end.

Scientists disagree whether temperature and maybe moisture could have lowered air pressure enough within the balls, but still no one in the NFL will verify that the balls were inflated indoors, and if so, admit how incredibly ignorant it is to specify a pressure range, then inflate balls at an ambient temperature that’s often considerably higher than where the balls are actually used. I can’t believe an organization with the resources available to it that the NFL has wouldn’t know something like this.

Kraft wants the NFL to apologize if there is no sanction, and Brady said his feelings were hurt. In all his years as a HC, Belichick never had a clue that air pressure in the ball had any effect on play—something every retired NFL player in the country seems happy to expound on. And now get this: a suggestion that the NFL was conducting a sting operation on the Patriots, intentionally letting them play with balls they thought might be deflated in order to catch them in the act.

You can't make this stuff up. This is better than a novel.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I don't know anyone who is ignoring that. The point is not that the Patriots won because they cheated, but that they cheated (if they knowingly deflated the balls). Period.

Hold on there Eddy. I was merely stating a fact regarding the game's outcome. Recall I'm the guy who called for Belicheck to be suspended for some practices, a large fine to the team as a whole, and the Pats give up a draft pick for their cheating ways.

As far as the comedy of the situation, you sure got that right. USA Today has a good article by Amour today:

No PR Nightmare the NFL Can't Make Worse!

This season alone could serve as an entire case study for what not to do in a crisis. Whether it was its woeful handling of the Ray Rice, Greg Hardy and Adrian Peterson domestic abuse cases, its brass-knuckled dealings with the players union or Deflategate, the NFL somehow managed to bungle it every time.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Did anyone watch the Pro Bowl? I know most people don't, but this year was the most interesting I have seen, here is why:

First, both QB's and coaches were mic'd up. So you could hear almost all of the plays, and many of the conversations in the sideline meetings. This was terrific insight to see who has what ideas, how coaches lead and listen, and QB's too. The 4Q conversation between Garrett, Ryan and Romo was fascinating. I wish the NFL did this on every game.

They changed the rules and made the game an experimental ground which I love. Some of the rules I like, some I don't, but most the jury is still out on for me:

• No kickoffs - Since the NFL has determined that this is where more injuries happen than anywhere else, I think this is smart, and inevitable. But it also takes away on-sides kicks.

• No blitzing - I hate this. I hate it even for the Pro Bowl. They should at least let defenses blitz one extra guy.

• Alternate possessions to start each quarter - This I somewhat liked, because it created a sense of urgency to more drives.

• Two-minute warnings for each quarter - This I didn't care for. It was like an extra timeout that slowed things down a touch.

• 2 Time outs per quarter, instead of 3 per half. This I didn't care for. Maybe if three of the TO's were 30 second time outs. I don't know.

• Stopping the clock when a running play doesn't gain a yard in the final two minutes - This I didn't like either, and it also created some confusion in I think the second quarter.

• More narrow goal posts - You guys know I have been an advocate of this for years. I thought it was terrific. Kicking is just too automatic.

• Longer extra-point kicks - This I need to think about more. Adam Vinateri missed two (but made 2/3 FG), Cody Parker made both of his. Neither liked them (duh). I guess it would encourage teams to go for 2 more often perhaps, so that would be good. I think maybe just having the skinny goal posts is a much better idea.

• Player celebration rules loosened - This I mostly like. Jeremy Graham was able to dunk the ball over the goal post without a penalty. That's a good thing.

• Second year in a row with "schoolyard" draft picking - This I first thought was dumb, but I kind of like it now. It seems to make it a little more competitive, and it was cool to see Talib cover Sanders for a few plays (both play for Denver). But it was also odd to see Jordy Nelson catch a great pass from Drew Brees, then celebrate with Packer teammate Clay Matthews...who was playing for the opposing team.

I have to admit I thought the "Team Irvin vs. Team Carter" to be overhyped. Michael Irvin is a character all right, but it detracted from whatever qualities the game had

Still some players there you think don't belong. What was Andy Dalton doing in the Pro Bowl?

 

[Oldman]

The most amusing part of Kraft's defense of the team's legacy is....the defense of the team's legacy. They are legendary for institutional cheating; how does he change that history? This brouhaha actually adds some comic relief and could have gone quietly into the background until after the SB until he did his Mr. Bigtime routine.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Is he that clueless? At least Al Davis knew to slyly embrace the Raiders bad guy image.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Did anyone watch the Pro Bowl?

They changed the rules and made the game an experimental ground which I love. Some of the rules I like, some I don't, but most the jury is still out on for me:

• No kickoffs - Since the NFL has determined that this is where more injuries happen than anywhere else, I think this is smart, and inevitable. But it also takes away on-sides kicks.

• No blitzing - I hate this. I hate it even for the Pro Bowl. They should at least let defenses blitz one extra guy.

• Alternate possessions to start each quarter - This I somewhat liked, because it created a sense of urgency to more drives.

• Two-minute warnings for each quarter - This I didn't care for. It was like an extra timeout that slowed things down a touch.

• 2 Time outs per quarter, instead of 3 per half. This I didn't care for. Maybe if three of the TO's were 30 second time outs. I don't know.

• Stopping the clock when a running play doesn't gain a yard in the final two minutes - This I didn't like either, and it also created some confusion in I think the second quarter.

• More narrow goal posts - You guys know I have been an advocate of this for years. I thought it was terrific. Kicking is just too automatic.

• Longer extra-point kicks - This I need to think about more. Adam Vinateri missed two (but made 2/3 FG), Cody Parker made both of his. Neither liked them (duh). I guess it would encourage teams to go for 2 more often perhaps, so that would be good. I think maybe just having the skinny goal posts is a much better idea.

• Player celebration rules loosened - This I mostly like. Jeremy Graham was able to dunk the ball over the goal post without a penalty. That's a good thing.

• Second year in a row with "schoolyard" draft picking - This I first thought was dumb, but I kind of like it now. It seems to make it a little more competitive, and it was cool to see Talib cover Sanders for a few plays (both play for Denver). But it was also odd to see Jordy Nelson catch a great pass from Drew Brees, then celebrate with Packer teammate Clay Matthews...who was playing for the opposing team.

• No kickoffs - Agree. But I think they could still get rid of kickoffs and keep the onside kick. But any onside would be the decision of the kicking team, and there would be no element of surprise. So what? There usually isn't anyway in the NFL. Surprise in some college and lower games, yes. NFL, no.

• No blitzing - Agree, but defenses should be able to blitz all they want. Take away blitzes and the NFL becomes like USFL or Arena Football. I will not waste my time if they turn the game into nothing but offense and passing. I don't watch USFL or Arena, but have, and in person. And it is not very interesting.

• Alternate possessions to start each quarter - I don't like this one. Why give possession to the other team and punish a team that may be moving the ball at end of the quarter? Just does not make sense.

• Two-minute warnings for each quarter - Agree. I think the 2-min warning to end each half provides enough entertainment value without messing with two other quarters.

• 2 Time outs per quarter, instead of 3 per half. I am neutral on this one because I do not get the point.

• Stopping the clock when a running play doesn't gain a yard in the final two minutes - I can see where confusion could result, especially with officials trying to decide whether to stop the clock while wondering if one yard was gained. And then they might have to measure. Or funnier/weirder yet, they might have to check the replay. Ha-ha. So, I don't like this change. BUT a couple things I would like about it:
1. It could take away the kneel-downs to end games when the other team is out of timeouts.
2. It could give a team that is behind in the score and without timeouts some ray of hope, which would add interest.
So if the point is to create interest and/or give hope to a team who's behind in score and on defense, then to avoid officials confusion just stop the clock after every play in the last 2 minutes to prevent teams from just sitting on it and running out the clock.

• More narrow goal posts - Agree, I like this one a lot.

• Longer extra-point kicks - Don't like this one at all, mostly because I could see a few games decided just on whether or not a 2-pointer was attempted. I agree just having the skinny goal posts is a much better idea.

• Player celebration rules loosened - To me, celebrations are too restricted. It should be restricted some, but not sure where you draw the line.

• Second year in a row with "schoolyard" draft picking - This is fine, but I don't really care because (to answer the first question) I don't watch the Pro Bowl.


Kraft should have taken a longer flight with longer layovers so he could have had more time to think about what he was really saying, or how it would come across.

Worse yet, Brandon Browner is as smart as a box of rocks. Karma baby.

 

[Merckx index]

Lots of opinions on deflategate. Jerry Rice thinks if NE wins the SB, they should get an asterisk. Troy Aikman says deflating the ball is worse than what the Saints did, because it definitely breaks the rules, whereas there is no actual proof that the Saints did. Former QB Jeff Blake says every team deflates the ball. If that's true, why is there a rule about the pressure? If every team benefits from doing something, then having a rule against doing that something doesn't make sense. It's not like doping or holding--if every QB prefers a softer ball, what's the point of having a harder one?

And there's a lot of discussion of NE's fumble rate. They have the lowest fumble rate over the past five years of any teams but Atl and NO, which play in domes, and thus avoid the weather factor. Their rate of plays per fumble is about 20 more than the next-best outdoor team, greater than the difference between the second-best and the worst. And this record began in 2007, right after Brady and Manning asked the NFL to allow home teams to supply the balls.

Some people have argued that's because most fumbles occur on strip sacks, and Brady doesn't get sacked much, and protects the ball well. But it turns out at least 8 starting QBs had a lower fumble rate than Brady on pass plays this year:

Dalton 0.60%
Orton 0.63%
Bridgewater 0.68%
Ryan 0.76%
Smith 0.79%
Manning 0.81%
Flacco 0.87%
Hoyer 0.87%
Brady 1.0%

Also, only one team, MN, had fewer fumbles by RBs this year. MN had just one, and NE and NYG were tied for second with two. NE was one of ten teams with no fumbles by a TE. They had 3 fumbles by WRs, putting them in the middle of the pack. So clearly the ability not to drop the ball is a team-wide phenomenon.

The key stat is fumbles at home, since that's where they supply the balls. I don't have data for that, but the offense lost a total of 5 fumbles this year, all on the road. Since they fumbled only 11 times, home and on the road, they almost certainly fumbled much less at home than on the road.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I love the way Browner refers to the Seahawks as his "brothers". Is it too late to switch jerseys?!

As to the blitzing rule, I was only referring to the Pro Bowl with that one. To implement a rule in all games would be absurd.

Kind of hoping someone else saw some of the Pro Bowl. Not just for the rules, but the fact that everyone was mic'd up and you could hear everything, plays called, huddles, sideline interaction. I wish every game were like this, though I do realize that without a guaranteed few minute delay on all broadcasts, it would never work. But as a geeky fan, it was great to see and hear, and hear Gruden periodically interpret and explain terminology and strategy as you heard it from the coaches and players. Mike Tirico too, to his credit.

 

[Oldman]

Alpe d'Huez]I love the way Browner refers to the Seahawks as his "brothers". Is it too late to switch jerseys?! [/B]

As to the blitzing rule, I was only referring to the Pro Bowl with that one. To implement a rule in all games would be absurd.

Kind of hoping someone else saw some of the Pro Bowl. Not just for the rules, but the fact that everyone was mic'd up and you could hear everything, plays called, huddles, sideline interaction. I wish every game were like this, though I do realize that without a guaranteed few minute delay on all broadcasts, it would never work. But as a geeky fan, it was great to see and hear, and hear Gruden periodically interpret and explain terminology and strategy as you heard it from the coaches and players. Mike Tirico too, to his credit.

This after he suggested some of his "brothers" injured arms should get targeted, broken. Aside from that both teams have largely praised each other and avoided providing motivational fodder.
Enter the NFL broadcast team members, Deion and Chris (hate Seattle) Carter.
Deion went face to face with Doug Baldwin after he responded to Baldwin's objection to Deion's opinion that Seattle receivers were merely "A-ite". His mock apology included several comparisons to other receivers stats and that those guys were "full grown men".....leaving Doug Baldwin to stew on screen.

Carter, assuming his Lumosity vocabulary of the day attempted to explain Marshawn Lynch's apparent aversion to public speaking: "some players....have problems with the King's English...". Classic. Anyone that's spent any time reviewing Marshawn knows that Beastmode is a marketing angle and he generally avoids pointless, repetitive Q&A sessions and always has. When he discusses his youth center efforts in Oakland he is articulate and totally engaged. He seems to have a wry sense of humor and no doubt finds Carter an amusing man.

Maybe some motivation comes from those Professional broadcast efforts but it's obvious that some NFL former pros revel in their "expertise"; particularly when they can indulge in self-congratulatory recollections. Total waste of bandwidth.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Most of media day is a joke hardly anyone pays attention to anyway. I'd like to see them instead have half the time spent where high school and college kids interview the players. Dan Patrick came up with this idea, and I like it. I think the players would also respond more do it.

Lots of opinions on deflategate. Jerry Rice thinks if NE wins the SB, they should get an asterisk. Troy Aikman says deflating the ball is worse than what the Saints did, because it definitely breaks the rules, whereas there is no actual proof that the Saints did. Former QB Jeff Blake says every team deflates the ball.

That can't be true (what Blake says). Aaron Rodgers says he likes them fully inflated. I can't recall the QB I heard on the radio the other day, but he was saying he found the sweet spot to be right in the middle at 13 psi. Drew Brees was on Boomer Esisan's radio show today saying the way he likes the football is one that is merely broken in a little, after roughly a week of practice, nothing else. He admits teams to everything they can do get an edge, but the whole thing is overblown.

Meanwhile, a company in Pennsylvania is making a new chocolate, called the Bradie, that looks like a deflated football. "If you can't beat 'em, eat 'em!"

I want to take a step back and look at bias again. The one area I still think the Raiders have been unfairly ignored is in Hall of Fame voting. I still feel that Ken Stabler, Cliff Branch, Lester Hayes, Jim Plunkett, Todd Christenson, Tom Flores and Tim Brown should all be in the HOF. Tim may finally get there this year. Steve Wisniewski, Dave Dalby, Jack Tatum, Ben Davidson, and Greg Townsend all could be. It took Ray Guy and Dave Casper way too long, John Madden as well, really.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Jack Tatum

Not in a lifetime. Never. Ever. The guy killed Stingley and never regreted. A true psycho. No mo, no less.

All his "talent" was lowering his head and ram it into people. True artists on the field (which can be seen mostly on the offensive side OFC) dont need cheap shots. Those are real HOFers...
In todays NFL this guy would be nothing. Burned on every play without his silly hits.

Walter Camp certainly had it not in his mind to "produce" football players like him. He is the ugly face of things that went wrong. Good that it changes inch by inch.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Actually, he did regret hurting him, though not his style of play, nor the play, which was legal at the time. Don't be fooled by the title of his book, or Steve Grogan's comments. Here's a good article on it, with a few quotes from Tatum.

I do agree though, he will never get into the hall, and that one unfortunate play is the reason why.

If you ask me, there's one play that exemplifies why he perhaps shouldn't get there, and that's the hit on Frenchy Fuqua during the 1973 Divisional game. He could have easily swatted the ball away or tackled Fuqua, but instead hammered Fuqua with a viscous hit, which caused the ball to go flying to Franco Harris, and the rest was history.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Here's the Bradie Ball:

[/IMG]