National Football League

Page 382 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I thought Brees was ordinary in the playoffs.

I think they should have limited reviews and once that amount is exhausted, they can't review further. Other sports do this and it works quite well. It also cuts out frivolous reviews.Unlimited reviews could make for a long viewing experience, almost unbearable if the refs were having an off day.

This Super Bowl has an odd feel to it. Many fans just want to see the back of the Patriots and their run of success is getting a bit old while the Rams are a fringe team popularity wise but many will probably be Rams fans for a day.
 
Re: Re:

on3m@n@rmy said:
As a result of the NE-KC outcome, I do not agree with those saying the league needs to change the OT rules so each team has equal opportunities to score a TD (which the Aint's did in that game and failed by not scoring on the first possession of OT).
I am one who would like to see this rule changed, but only for the playoffs.

As to Tim Donaghy, kind of in the weeds here, but during the 60 Minutes interview it was revealed that he passed both an independent lie detector and FBI lie detector test. Granted, those aren't 100%. But the FBI also stated they believed after he confessed, he was telling them the absolute truth from that point on. Put another way, it's an ugly truth that's probably rare, but happens more than people realize, that refs, even leagues, "alter" games and Donaghy wasn't the first, or last. Rare, but probably true. I know nothing about him gambling now, that sounds like a ruse. Last I heard he got arrested for nearly hitting a guy who was trying to sell drugs to his daughter.
 
Re: Re:

infeXio said:
How is it even possible to be this bitter? Jesus christ, it reeks. That you won't even acknowledge how insane it is to have 9 Super Bowl appearances in 18 years (during the salary cap era, mind) is so utterly ignorant. No other team has more than 8.
Not saying the Patriots haven’t had a remarkable run, but let’s remember, as Hitch pointed out upthread, they play in the softest division in the NFL. No team from that division other than NE has been to the SB since Buffalo in the early 90s. Every other division in the NFL has sent at least two teams to the SB in the past twenty years. That means that a) the Patriots only need to be a little better than average to win their division, year after year; and b) if they are a very good team, on a par with but no better than multiple SB winners of the past, they get a lot of virtually guaranteed wins, paving their way to a first round bye. At that point, they’re just one home win away from playing for the AFC championship.

And those home games are critical. In the B-B era, NE is 20-3 in playoff games at home. They’re 4-4 on the road. Call me cynical, but I really wouldn’t be surprised if Beli has installed signal-stealing technology at Gillette.

Even outside their division, the competition in the AFC hasn’t been that strong. There has been only one other team consistently good throughout the past twenty years, the Steelers. They’ve been to three SB and won two, but have never had a dominant season, followed by a dominant SB win. The Ravens, Broncos and Colts have been to two SB each in that period, but except for the Ravens first SB, none of those teams won a SB in dominant fashion.

Contrast this with the 70s, when the Steelers had to contend with Miami and Oakland; those teams won 8 SB in nine years. It was a low-scoring era, but except for Pittsburgh's two SB against Dallas, the games really weren't close. Or the 80s and early 90s, when the 49ers had the Giants and Washington, and then Dallas. The NFC won 13 consecutive SB during this period, and only two of them were even close. In contrast, neither conference has dominated in this century, and every one of NE’s SB has been decided by a single score. There hasn’t been a single SB when the Patriots dominated the other team.

So sure, NE is a dynasty, in an era when it’s hard to stay on top for very long. Belichick is probably the best football coach in history, assuming he hasn’t cheated his way to the top. But let’s not get carried away. The playoff system, which usually makes it harder for a team to win a series of championships, has worked to NE’s advantage. They win their division virtually automatically every year, and sometimes have to beat one other very good team, usually at home, to get to the SB. When they get there, they typically play a close game, winning sometimes, losing other times. They win year after year not by being clearly the best team, but by being good enough to win a share of championships and SBs that their schedule helps them get into.

on3m@n@rmy said:
While the No-Call was a officiating mistake, I believe it would not hurt to make more plays like that reviewable in some way (either by challenge or review booth call) as long as it would not slow the game down.
PI is non-reviewable because it’s a subjective call. A player either steps out of bounds, or doesn’t; there is a fact of the matter. He either catches a pass or not (granted, the definition of a catch is another matter entirely). But PI is not as simple as hitting a receiver before the ball arrives. It may be judged incidental contact, the defender going for the ball, or the pass non-catchable. If subjective decisions like this are made reviewable, then there will be pressure to review other penalties that are also subjective—like roughing the passer, e.g., or even holding.

over recent years when rules favor offenses guess what percentage of teams that won the OT-opening coin toss won the game? 52%. That's it. The stats show that winning the coin toss to start OT does not significantly favor that team winning the game.
Seems to me that’s a pretty good argument for letting both teams have the ball in OT. There’s a lot of unfairness in sports, as in life, but the rules are supposed to be set up to ensure fairness as much as possible. To give one team but not the other a chance to win is blatantly unfair. Suppose the rules in baseball were changed so that in a tie game, if a team scored in the top half of the tenth inning, that team wins. That’s actually quite analogous to the current NFL OT rule, and no one in his right mind would advocate that.

Or how about the first team to score in OT wins in the NBA? You good with that?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
infeXio said:
Seems to me that’s a pretty good argument for letting both teams have the ball in OT. There’s a lot of unfairness in sports, as in life, but the rules are supposed to be set up to ensure fairness as much as possible. To give one team but not the other a chance to win is blatantly unfair. Suppose the rules in baseball were changed so that in a tie game, if a team scored in the top half of the tenth inning, that team wins. That’s actually quite analogous to the current NFL OT rule, and no one in his right mind would advocate that.

Or how about the first team to score in OT wins in the NBA? You good with that?
Add one more, the NHL which has true sudden death overtime. Thing about the NHL is that it is exceptionally unlikely that both teams don't have chances to win the game before one team does end up winning. Of course for the NHL I'd prefer to dump the shootout and just play a 5 minute OT period in the regular season and if it ends in a tie, so be it. It was really never an issue that the NHL decided to find a solution for. In the playoffs they play full periods until someone scores. Granted it rarely goes past 1 OT period, but it can and has.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
infeXio said:
How is it even possible to be this bitter? Jesus christ, it reeks. That you won't even acknowledge how insane it is to have 9 Super Bowl appearances in 18 years (during the salary cap era, mind) is so utterly ignorant. No other team has more than 8.
Not saying the Patriots haven’t had a remarkable run, but let’s remember, as Hitch pointed out upthread, they play in the softest division in the NFL. No team from that division other than NE has been to the SB since Buffalo in the early 90s. Every other division in the NFL has sent at least two teams to the SB in the past twenty years. That means that a) the Patriots only need to be a little better than average to win their division, year after year; and b) if they are a very good team, on a par with but no better than multiple SB winners of the past, they get a lot of virtually guaranteed wins, paving their way to a first round bye. At that point, they’re just one home win away from playing for the AFC championship.

And those home games are critical. In the B-B era, NE is 20-3 in playoff games at home. They’re 4-4 on the road. Call me cynical, but I really wouldn’t be surprised if Beli has installed signal-stealing technology at Gillette.

Even outside their division, the competition in the AFC hasn’t been that strong. There has been only one other team consistently good throughout the past twenty years, the Steelers. They’ve been to three SB and won two, but have never had a dominant season, followed by a dominant SB win. The Ravens, Broncos and Colts have been to two SB each in that period, but except for the Ravens first SB, none of those teams won a SB in dominant fashion.

Contrast this with the 70s, when the Steelers had to contend with Miami and Oakland; those teams won 8 SB in nine years. It was a low-scoring era, but except for Pittsburgh's two SB against Dallas, the games really weren't close. Or the 80s and early 90s, when the 49ers had the Giants and Washington, and then Dallas. The NFC won 13 consecutive SB during this period, and only two of them were even close. In contrast, neither conference has dominated in this century, and every one of NE’s SB has been decided by a single score. There hasn’t been a single SB when the Patriots dominated the other team.

So sure, NE is a dynasty, in an era when it’s hard to stay on top for very long. Belichick is probably the best football coach in history, assuming he hasn’t cheated his way to the top. But let’s not get carried away. The playoff system, which usually makes it harder for a team to win a series of championships, has worked to NE’s advantage. They win their division virtually automatically every year, and sometimes have to beat one other very good team, usually at home, to get to the SB. When they get there, they typically play a close game, winning sometimes, losing other times. They win year after year not by being clearly the best team, but by being good enough to win a share of championships and SBs that their schedule helps them get into.

on3m@n@rmy said:
While the No-Call was a officiating mistake, I believe it would not hurt to make more plays like that reviewable in some way (either by challenge or review booth call) as long as it would not slow the game down.
PI is non-reviewable because it’s a subjective call. A player either steps out of bounds, or doesn’t; there is a fact of the matter. He either catches a pass or not (granted, the definition of a catch is another matter entirely). But PI is not as simple as hitting a receiver before the ball arrives. It may be judged incidental contact, the defender going for the ball, or the pass non-catchable. If subjective decisions like this are made reviewable, then there will be pressure to review other penalties that are also subjective—like roughing the passer, e.g., or even holding.

over recent years when rules favor offenses guess what percentage of teams that won the OT-opening coin toss won the game? 52%. That's it. The stats show that winning the coin toss to start OT does not significantly favor that team winning the game.
Seems to me that’s a pretty good argument for letting both teams have the ball in OT. There’s a lot of unfairness in sports, as in life, but the rules are supposed to be set up to ensure fairness as much as possible. To give one team but not the other a chance to win is blatantly unfair. Suppose the rules in baseball were changed so that in a tie game, if a team scored in the top half of the tenth inning, that team wins. That’s actually quite analogous to the current NFL OT rule, and no one in his right mind would advocate that.

Or how about the first team to score in OT wins in the NBA? You good with that?
What you are saying is not wrong, but a weak team from a weak division won five Superbowls against great teams from strong divisions?

PI subjective (squinting face) maybee sometimes?, but the one that has everybody's panties in a wad now is far from subjective...its blatantly obvious. Maybe not a coaches review, bt as I suggested above, NY should be able to buzz in and "throw your flag!"
 
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
Merckx index said:
infeXio said:
PI subjective (squinting face) maybee sometimes?, but the one that has everybody's panties in a wad now is far from subjective...its blatantly obvious. Maybe not a coaches review, bt as I suggested above, NY should be able to buzz in and "throw your flag!"

As for reviews, how about what at least some of the college conferences have, which is the booth can call for a review of any play during the game?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
on3m@n@rmy wrote:
over recent years when rules favor offenses guess what percentage of teams that won the OT-opening coin toss won the game? 52%. That's it. The stats show that winning the coin toss to start OT does not significantly favor that team winning the game.
Seems to me that’s a pretty good argument for letting both teams have the ball in OT. There’s a lot of unfairness in sports, as in life, but the rules are supposed to be set up to ensure fairness as much as possible. To give one team but not the other a chance to win is blatantly unfair. Suppose the rules in baseball were changed so that in a tie game, if a team scored in the top half of the tenth inning, that team wins. That’s actually quite analogous to the current NFL OT rule, and no one in his right mind would advocate that.

Or how about the first team to score in OT wins in the NBA? You good with that?
First, forget the NBA analogy. It's not even a parallel because the 2 sports are like comparing apples & oranges. Why? For one because injury is a much bigger factor in the NFL vs the NBA, which is my concern. But I'll bite and indulge the analogy. Are you okay with NFL games going into triple OT like the NBA? Maybe ask a football player before answering.

Further, it's about more than just being fair from a gaming standpoint. It's also about being fair to players bodies. Are you okay with putting your body out their on the field when your legs are about to cramp up and get trucked as a result?

Finally, back to people's perceptions vs the stats. I have never heard nor read someone say winning the coin toss gives a team a 50/50 chance of winning the game, therefore, let's let both teams get a chance to possess the ball and score TDs. No, the perception, or really the misconception, is that winning the coin toss gives a team greater than say a 70% chance of winning the game. If that misconception was true it (winning the OT coin toss) would be an unfair advantage, in which case I'd be more likely to support a KC tiebreaker. But the misconception is just that for reason: it is not true. Being that it is about 52%, it does not matter whether or not a team wins the OT coin toss.

Now, KC might say (& I have not paid attention) the coin toss lost them the game. Cry me a river. I'll give the one big example that lost KC the game: with about one minute left in regulation and KC leading by 4 points (28-24), on a critical 3rd down &10, Brady's short pass to Gronk in the flat was tipped in the air by Gronk and intercepted by KC. That should have ended the game right there, IN regulation. No need for OT in that case. But no, a team has to play a full 60 minutes, & KC failed to. Why? RDE Dee Ford lined up in the neutral zone and was flagged for it, giving Brady another 3rd down opportunity. As a direct result, NE scored & ultimately won. KC cannot legitimately blame the loss on a coin toss. Saints (who won their OT coin toss vs Rams) proved that winning the coin toss does not ensure victory.
 
What everyone everywhere has been forgetting is the Patriots still had all 3 timeouts when the play happened. The patriots would have had a far reduced chance to win but the game wasn't over by any means.

I think the overtime rules are being looked at like this because the Patriots won. If Andy Reid called a timeout and they stopped Brady and won the game, no one would be talking about it. The fact the Chiefs didn't get the ball back isn't the reason they lost. Further, the NFL will most likely not change the rule because loss of add revenue, game running for to long, and player injury. Maybe instead of having the whole 15 mins, each offense has 2 mins to drive down the field and score points. Who ever has the highest wins and if not rinse and repeat. This would cut down on the time of the game and be fair to both sides.

I think what would help the refs is rules that aren't judgmental, clear wording, and getting help from NY on hard iffy calls. I was telling my friend during the Pats game with all the reviews going on is all kinds of pressure on the ref.
 
Well, on how to make play safer & make OT fair, I heard one idea on Cowherd with former Packer WR Greg Jennings: put it in the kickers hands like a soccer shootout. Start say with 40-45 yarders, then move it back 5 yards until someone misses. Repeat as necessary.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
on3m@n@rmy said:
As a result of the NE-KC outcome, I do not agree with those saying the league needs to change the OT rules so each team has equal opportunities to score a TD (which the Aint's did in that game and failed by not scoring on the first possession of OT).
I am one who would like to see this rule changed, but only for the playoffs.

As to Tim Donaghy, kind of in the weeds here, but during the 60 Minutes interview it was revealed that he passed both an independent lie detector and FBI lie detector test. Granted, those aren't 100%. But the FBI also stated they believed after he confessed, he was telling them the absolute truth from that point on. Put another way, it's an ugly truth that's probably rare, but happens more than people realize, that refs, even leagues, "alter" games and Donaghy wasn't the first, or last. Rare, but probably true. I know nothing about him gambling now, that sounds like a ruse. Last I heard he got arrested for nearly hitting a guy who was trying to sell drugs to his daughter.
52 % of teams that win the coin toss win the game when it comes to overtime which suggests that the rule won't be changed.
 
Looking ahead to the SB, I have not yet selected the team I think will win, but think it should be a fun matchup. Also, I don't think it is as simple as siding with Belichick's experience. While Bill excells at game planning, often by defensively taking away what offenses are good at, this Rams team without Kupp & a healthy Gurley are really difficult to pinpoint something in the Rams offense to take away because the Rams have spread the ball around well to 5 or 6 different receivers. I think KC may have been easier to game plan for; taking away Hill & Kelce. But take away any two Ram targets and they can hit you with 3 others. FFT.
 
on3m@n@rmy said:
Looking ahead to the SB, I have not yet selected the team I think will win, but think it should be a fun matchup...
Thanks for posting about the actual upcoming game. :) I too think it will be good, as the Patriots are loaded with experience, and the Rams loaded with talent. It should indeed be a fun game to watch.

As to rules, I can only repeat what I said in the past, I think every play should be reviewable, with a crew watching from a centralized location at every play. Having said that, I also think if they can't decide to overturn a call on the field within 1 minute, the call on the field should stand. The days of an on field referee going to the sidelines, watching a monitor over and over should end. That's Y2K technology thinking.

As to OT, if injuries are an issue, and they are, I'd be okay if regular season games that ended after 4Q in a tie, were just a tie, no OT. Then in the playoffs if it ends in a tie, both teams get the ball at least once. Recall in years past it was sudden death though, which was worse. I think the rule change honestly came about because of the 2009 playoffs when the Colts were beating the Chargers most of the day, though the score was close. The Chargers kicked a late FG to go to OT, then got the ball first, and drove down the field and scored. End of Game. The broadcast ended with Peyton Manning standing on the sidelines in dismay, never getting a chance to even touch the football to help his team in OT. The rule was changed the next season.
 
Personally I think every call should be challengable or no call should be. They all affect the outcome of the game. You either trust your officials to make the call or you don’t.



Can’t see past the Patriots for the win.
 
As typed before, I completely agree with what Alpe and KB typed above: every play should be looked at in NY. The coaches should still have their red flags, but by the time they throw it, NY already has their decision and the delay is about 30 seconds.

A few weeks ago I was frequently getting ransom demands when viewing the forum, those stopped but last night I got a big red screen malware warning from Avast. Its making me a little nervous...
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
As typed before, I completely agree with what Alpe and KB typed above: every play should be looked at in NY. The coaches should still have their red flags, but by the time they throw it, NY already has their decision and the delay is about 30 seconds.

A few weeks ago I was frequently getting ransom demands when viewing the forum, those stopped but last night I got a big red screen malware warning from Avast. Its making me a little nervous...

It does seem like it would be fairly easy to have a team review every play, or at least start reviewing it, just in case a flag is thrown. Either allow challenges for all calls or accept that refs make mistakes and that's part of the game.

I've not heard of similar problems. I'll bring it up with the other admins.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
As to OT, if injuries are an issue, and they are, I'd be okay if regular season games that ended after 4Q in a tie, were just a tie, no OT. Then in the playoffs if it ends in a tie, both teams get the ball at least once. Recall in years past it was sudden death though, which was worse. I think the rule change honestly came about because of the 2009 playoffs when the Colts were beating the Chargers most of the day, though the score was close. The Chargers kicked a late FG to go to OT, then got the ball first, and drove down the field and scored. End of Game. The broadcast ended with Peyton Manning standing on the sidelines in dismay, never getting a chance to even touch the football to help his team in OT. The rule was changed the next season.
I've often wondered why the NFL hasn't considered implementing the college OT rules, or something very similar. The College OT rules have been in effect now since 1996 and, IMO, are about as fair as it gets for an OT while trying not to extent the game too long. Perhaps the NFL could start from the 35 or 40 yd line (as opposed to the 25 for college) or even mid-field. Maybe a two-point conversion would be required on the 2nd OT instead of the 3rd OT in the college game. At least each team would be guaranteed one possession. Not surprisingly, Brees is all for the college style OT:

https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/college-football-overtime-rules-explained
 
That's why I went with both teams have 2 minutes to possess the ball and see what they can do with it. If it is tied they go from there. Less time, everyone has a chance, and less injuries.

For the super bowl i want the pats to win.
 
I personally would not want to see college OT rules in the NFL, there are a few reasons for this. First, it takes away an entire premise of football, where the game is fought and won at the line of scrimmage, and instead sets everything up for scoring. That in turn tends to skew stats, specifically TD's and points. There was a game between Texas A&M vs. LSU that ended at 74-72 after seven OT's. Granted, that's the worst example, but there have been plenty more going to triple overtime, one where Texas Tech beat TCU and Seth Dodge threw an astounding 7 TD passes, three of them in overtime. I don't want to see that in the NFL.

Having each team have a 2-minute drill (one TO? No TO's?) to see what they can do would be better than college, but I'm not so sure I'm okay with that either.

I'll stick with my original thought. No more OT in the regular season, in the playoffs each team gets to have the ball once.

I heard one stat somewhere that said the way they have OT now would be the most statically fair and closest to the rules now is if instead of having a kickoff in OT, one team (coin toss, maybe just home team), just started on offense from their own 15 yard line. I guess the extra 10 yards or so make up the difference.

Having complained about the NFL overtime, I think it's better than most other sports.

MLB - Fair, but games go on way too long often. I support the idea of a extra inning starting with a runner on 2nd base.
NBA - Pretty fair, but often too long as well.
NHL - Shootouts are exciting, but I don't like them, as they skew stats some. I'd rather have them exchange power plays.
Soccer - Maybe the worst. Penalty kicks there are a terrible way to end matches.
Tennis - Pretty fair, but they often go on way too long.
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
I personally would not want to see college OT rules in the NFL, there are a few reasons for this. First, it takes away an entire premise of football, where the game is fought and won at the line of scrimmage, and instead sets everything up for scoring. That in turn tends to skew stats, specifically TD's and points. There was a game between Texas A&M vs. LSU that ended at 74-72 after seven OT's. Granted, that's the worst example, but there have been plenty more going to triple overtime, one where Texas Tech beat TCU and Seth Dodge threw an astounding 7 TD passes, three of them in overtime. I don't want to see that in the NFL.

Having each team have a 2-minute drill (one TO? No TO's?) to see what they can do would be better than college, but I'm not so sure I'm okay with that either.

I'll stick with my original thought. No more OT in the regular season, in the playoffs each team gets to have the ball once.

I heard one stat somewhere that said the way they have OT now would be the most statically fair and closest to the rules now is if instead of having a kickoff in OT, one team (coin toss, maybe just home team), just started on offense from their own 15 yard line. I guess the extra 10 yards or so make up the difference.

Having complained about the NFL overtime, I think it's better than most other sports.

MLB - Fair, but games go on way too long often. I support the idea of a extra inning starting with a runner on 2nd base.
NBA - Pretty fair, but often too long as well.
NHL - Shootouts are exciting, but I don't like them, as they skew stats some. I'd rather have them exchange power plays.
Soccer - Maybe the worst. Penalty kicks there are a terrible way to end matches.
Tennis - Pretty fair, but they often go on way too long.
How about they don't count stats in OT? I'm certainly guilty of using stats to prove my point (or disprove one), but the excess of numbers that often mean nothing is tiresome at best. Stats often don't tell the actual story of the game/player performance. We even had a forum member post that they hadn't seen the game but based on the stats, TB wasn't too great. BUT, TB had full control of that game. In fact, he's had worse games with better numbers.
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
I personally would not want to see college OT rules in the NFL, there are a few reasons for this. First, it takes away an entire premise of football, where the game is fought and won at the line of scrimmage, and instead sets everything up for scoring. That in turn tends to skew stats, specifically TD's and points. There was a game between Texas A&M vs. LSU that ended at 74-72 after seven OT's. Granted, that's the worst example, but there have been plenty more going to triple overtime, one where Texas Tech beat TCU and Seth Dodge threw an astounding 7 TD passes, three of them in overtime. I don't want to see that in the NFL.

Having each team have a 2-minute drill (one TO? No TO's?) to see what they can do would be better than college, but I'm not so sure I'm okay with that either.

I'll stick with my original thought. No more OT in the regular season, in the playoffs each team gets to have the ball once.

I heard one stat somewhere that said the way they have OT now would be the most statically fair and closest to the rules now is if instead of having a kickoff in OT, one team (coin toss, maybe just home team), just started on offense from their own 15 yard line. I guess the extra 10 yards or so make up the difference.

Having complained about the NFL overtime, I think it's better than most other sports.

MLB - Fair, but games go on way too long often. I support the idea of a extra inning starting with a runner on 2nd base.
NBA - Pretty fair, but often too long as well.
NHL - Shootouts are exciting, but I don't like them, as they skew stats some. I'd rather have them exchange power plays.
Soccer - Maybe the worst. Penalty kicks there are a terrible way to end matches.
Tennis - Pretty fair, but they often go on way too long.

That is a fairly new thing for the NHL. They used to just play 5 on 5 hockey for 5 minutes for OT and if no one scored the game ended in a tie. Playoffs are different. Playoffs are 5 on 5 hockey, just like the regular periods, and they play full periods until someone scores. I'd be happier if they'd just go back to the old OT rules. There was nothing wrong with them and I actually was at a couple of games that ended in ties. Fans in general didn't have a real issue with that.
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
I've meant to post an addition to the "family football connection" conversation: Those of you who are old like me will remember Mark Rypien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rypien), his nephew Brett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Rypien) has been the QB here at BSU for four years.
K, I'll date myself. Not only do I remember Mark, I remember the nickname of his offense in college at WSU (Pullman). The RPM (Rypien, Porter, Mayes) offense. Kerry Porter & Reuben Mayes were running backs, with Mayes playing a decent NFL career. I'd hoped Brett would attend his dad's & my alma matter at WSU. Nice to see he had a really good career at BSU, and could end up on some NFL team's draft board. On QB rating, he was not as good as Jared Goff or Baker Mayfield, but very close to Josh Rosen. Nice list of MWC awards. Beat out Kellen Moore's career stats at BSU.
 
Re: Re:

on3m@n@rmy said:
jmdirt said:
I've meant to post an addition to the "family football connection" conversation: Those of you who are old like me will remember Mark Rypien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rypien), his nephew Brett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Rypien) has been the QB here at BSU for four years.
K, I'll date myself. Not only do I remember Mark, I remember the nickname of his offense in college at WSU (Pullman). The RPM (Rypien, Porter, Mayes) offense. Kerry Porter & Reuben Mayes were running backs, with Mayes playing a decent NFL career. I'd hoped Brett would attend his dad's & my alma matter at WSU. Nice to see he had a really good career at BSU, and could end up on some NFL team's draft board. On QB rating, he was not as good as Jared Goff or Baker Mayfield, but very close to Josh Rosen. Nice list of MWC awards. Beat out Kellen Moore's career stats at BSU.
I'd like to see him at the next level too, but he is pretty small (EDIT: he is listed at 203 lb now, but I've walked past him a few times and he is 180ish) for the NFL. We'll see I guess...

EDIT: he got invited to the combine so that's a good start.

EDIT 2: DAL has had a lot of BSU players over the years and it looks like Kellen Moore (BSU QB) is set to become the OC so maybe Brett will get a sot with them.
 
Re: Re:

jmdirt said:
on3m@n@rmy said:
jmdirt said:
I've meant to post an addition to the "family football connection" conversation: Those of you who are old like me will remember Mark Rypien (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rypien), his nephew Brett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Rypien) has been the QB here at BSU for four years.
K, I'll date myself. Not only do I remember Mark, I remember the nickname of his offense in college at WSU (Pullman). The RPM (Rypien, Porter, Mayes) offense. Kerry Porter & Reuben Mayes were running backs, with Mayes playing a decent NFL career. I'd hoped Brett would attend his dad's & my alma matter at WSU. Nice to see he had a really good career at BSU, and could end up on some NFL team's draft board. On QB rating, he was not as good as Jared Goff or Baker Mayfield, but very close to Josh Rosen. Nice list of MWC awards. Beat out Kellen Moore's career stats at BSU.
I'd like to see him at the next level too, but he is pretty small for the NFL. We'll see I guess...

EDIT: he got invited to the combine so that's a good start.

I'll add my name to the list that remember Mark. Nice to see his nephew get an invite to the combine. Hope he gets a shot with a team somewhere.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS