|
texaholic posted:My rankings of the NFL divisions based on the rivalry factor: Even though it's horseshit now, the AFCW has had some classic rivalries back in the day.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2010 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
I have a few stupid questions that I should probably already know. What is the difference between a hard count and a soft count? What do the announcers mean when they say the quarterback is checking it down?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
Luminous Cow posted:I have a few stupid questions that I should probably already know. A hard count is when the QB utilizes the cadence in an attempt to draw the defense offsides and gain a 1st down on a short yardage situation. On 4th and 1 the offense will line up and the QB will really emphasize the cadence, yelling and emphasizing certain calls in hopes that a d-lineman will jump. Sometimes this is purely a ploy by the offense to gain a 1st by offsides and they have no intentions of running a play, and will either take a delay of game or call a timeout and then punt. Sometimes they will utilize the hard count until the last second and still run a play. A checkdown on a passing play is when the QB throws to a receiver who is not one of the primary targets or reads. Usually the checkdown receiver runs a much shorter route making it an easier and safer completion for the QB, with the obvious trade off of gaining less yardage. Quite frequently the check down will be to a back who was used in blitz pickup or to chip block against a d-lineman. If no player blitzes to the gap the back was assigned to protect he has the option to run a route. e:Play diagram for checkdown explanation:  In this play, which is a play-action pass, the QB will probably be reading from left to right and assuming he has an arm (this is taken from a HS playbook) the left flanker will be his #1 read, and he should throw it to him assuming the CB bites on the play fake. The #2 read is the TE dragging across the middle, and the checkdown in this case is the FB in the flats. McKracken fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Sep 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
ch1mp posted:Thank you for explaining that. The colossal mismatches that I seem stumble across frequently are one of the reasons that I have had a hard time getting in to college ball and I wondered where these match ups came from. Some of those games are mandated by law or tradition or the other team used to be better or whatever. Like Navy (the underdog) will play Notre Dame (usually not the underdog) until Navy says they don't want to. And Navy proceeded to lose like 43 years straight. But Navy's second biggest rival is Notre Dame so they'll play it. Ohio State completely overpowers all the other Ohio teams, but somewhere along the way Ohio grew a lot of FBS teams. So every year they crush Ohio or Akron or something because its all Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2010 05:44
|
|
|
Okay, I need some help. I got asked how college bowl games work and how the teams in BCS bowl games are determined. I was kinda stumped and couldn't really explain it as much as I'd like and Yahoo! Answers is full of retards. Obviously #1 and #2 go to the BCS Championship, but how are the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar Bowls determined? Yahoo Answers would have me believe that it's Rose = Pac-10 and Big Ten champs, Orange = ACC champs, Fiesta = Big 12 champs, and Sugar = SEC champs. If that were true how did Texas play Michigan in the Rose Bowl in 2004? Was that because USC was playing in the National Championship? help me college football goons 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
ThatOtherGuy posted:Okay, I need some help. I got asked how college bowl games work and how the teams in BCS bowl games are determined. I was kinda stumped and couldn't really explain it as much as I'd like and Yahoo! Answers is full of retards. Very detailed explanation here: http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597 You are right about those affiliations. Those spots are predetermined. After that, there is a rotation (changes every year) for the order in which the bowls get to choose which qualifying team they want to play in their game. If a team that would have be in one of the predetermined slots goes to the championship game, that bowl gets first choice of replacement teams (that is how you got Texas vs. Michigan in the Rose). The Rose Bowl has a special clause that the first time between now and 2014 that one of their affiliated teams makes it to the championship game and a non-BCS conference is a BCS auto-qualifier, they have to select that team. This was done to appease the other bowls who didn't like that the Rose would never be in a position to have to select a non-AQ team. If some of this doesn't make sense to you, the BCS site probably does a better job at explaining it. The rest of the bowls are generally affiliated with a conference and have a pecking order of which teams they get to pick. Sometimes you'll see a Bowl Game A listed as something like Big Ten #3 vs. Big 12 #3. Generally it's looked at that the bowl will feature the #3 team in each of those conferences. What it actually means is that Bowl Game A has 3rd choice of which team from each conference it wants. Team selection is generally done by whatever committee of rich fucks runs a given bowl game. It is most certainly not just "get the best team". Criteria used in this process are (off the top of my head) TV ratings, fan travel $$, game attendance, star-power, story-lines, and competition. How these factors are weighed by a bowl committee is up to them. It gets more complicated of course, but I think that's a decent overview.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
I also know the ACC(and maybe other conferences I can't be sure) has a clause in its agreements with bowls that says that a bowl game can't take a team that is has one more lose then the winningest reaming ACC team. For example say the Gator bowl(normally takes ACC#2) wouldn't necessarily be able to take a 7-5 FSU who was the ACC Atlantic champ is there was a 10-1 Miami who was the runner up in the ACC Coastal. That is a bit of an extreme example, but I know it has happened in the past.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
tk posted:The rest of the bowls are generally affiliated with a conference and have a pecking order of which teams they get to pick. Sometimes you'll see a Bowl Game A listed as something like Big Ten #3 vs. Big 12 #3. Generally it's looked at that the bowl will feature the #3 team in each of those conferences. What it actually means is that Bowl Game A has 3rd choice of which team from each conference it wants. Here's a good example of this: Suppose Penn State and Michigan are both 9-3 (6-2). They're both tied for second in the conference. The Capital One has pick of the #2 Big Ten team after the Rose Bowl took Ohio State. But PSU and Michigan are both #2. Who do you take! The answer is Michigan, because PSU went last year and PSU fans probably aren't too keen to return to Orlando a second year in a row to a tier 2 bowl. Michigan hasn't been there in a few years, or any bowl for that matter. So a lot of people with money will fly down out of the frigid north to be in Florida. Penn State fans grumble a little, but fly down to Tampa anyhow for the Outback Bowl.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a site that lists NFL game summaries that includes number of possessions for each team, and not just time of possession? Edit: possessions per team, not time. -Dethstryk- fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Oct 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
-Dethstryk- posted:Does anyone know of a site that lists NFL game summaries that includes number of possessions for each time, and not just time of possession?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
ESPN has a good drive summary as part of their box score. It defaults to just scoring drives, but you can break it down by quarter and it includes TOP for every drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
tk posted:If you really need the info, you can just count: http://espn.go.com/nfl/drivechart?gameId=300912027
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2010 02:17
|
|
|
What does ISO (as in the running play) actually mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 03:54
|
|
|
nous_ posted:What does ISO (as in the running play) actually mean? The play involves the fullback in one-on-one block on a linebacker (usually), coming through a particular gap, with the tailback following him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
nous_ posted:What does ISO (as in the running play) actually mean? What Dominion said, but it's short for isolation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
Lead, iso, and blast are all pretty close cousins, and depending on playbook-specific terminology may be used interchangeably (same play could be called any of the three depending on a certain playbook) or concurrently (a play could be called lead iso, iso blast, etc.). They're your basic man-blocking straight ahead inside run plays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
Thanks! One more question: if a player got knocked out and dropped the ball before touching the ground, would that still be ruled a fumble or is the play dead at the moment of injury? I'm thinking of that helmet to helmet hit on Willis McGahee in the AFC championship a few years back. I don't think it was flagged, but he was knocked out immediately and dropped the ball. I don't remember what the ruling on possession was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
nous_ posted:Thanks! One more question: if a player got knocked out and dropped the ball before touching the ground, would that still be ruled a fumble or is the play dead at the moment of injury? I'm thinking of that helmet to helmet hit on Willis McGahee in the AFC championship a few years back. I don't think it was flagged, but he was knocked out immediately and dropped the ball. I don't remember what the ruling on possession was. It's a fumble. The only thing that stops a play is the helmet coming off the ball carrier in a few leagues. The NFL did not do this a few years ago but I think they may have added that rule this year or last.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 21:13
|
|
|
I was looking at some defensive stats on FO and saw that the Texans were the worst passing defense in the league. I went to NFL.com and started looking at the team stats, when I saw the "avg" stat on passing defense. NFL passing defense stats for reference. Sorted by this, the Texans are tied with Detroit for 2nd in avg, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell this number is or how they derive it. It's sure as hell not yds/attempt. Couldn't really find a better place to ask this question, so could someone point out to me what the obvious thing I'm overlooking here is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
It looks like some derivative of yards per attempt, although it's not just straight yards divided by attempts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
Huh, yeah, that's a weird one and it's the same way for passing offense. It doesn't look to be any combination of attempts + sacks to yards either, maybe need to add sack yards, but I don't think that'd fix those numbers either. ESPN has the same stat listed straight up as Yards per Pass attempt, and they match NFL.com's. Okay I solved it. It's passing yards given up + sack yards / Pass attempts (It is almost 3 am, but this seems retarded to me). 1) Why is it adding the sack yards instead of subtracting? 2) Why is it not counting sacks as part of total attempts then? Double Edit for 3am: It's because it is being very literal. The passing yards allowed stat already has the sack yards removed from it already, so the Yards per pass attempt stat is trying to literally calculate that, without the sack yardage being removed. Kalli fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Oct 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
Yep, that's it. Thanks! I never would have guessed that sack yards were already taken away from passing yards, but I guess it somewhat makes sense that they would do that because they don't actually show sack yards (as they're already accounted for). Still weird, though. pyromance posted:It's sure as hell not yds/attempt. jeffersonlives posted:It looks like some derivative of yards per attempt, although it's not just straight yards divided by attempts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
Dumb question, but... When the Randy Moss trade first broke, some people made jokes saying that the Pats were "lending" him to the Vikings just for the bye week / game against the Jets, and the Vikes were gonna trade him back after Monday's game for the same 3rd round pick. Now obviously this isn't the case, but I'm just wondering if there's actual rules against teams making such an agreement? Because a move like that would be hilariously scumbaggish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 07:04
|
|
|
Kevyn posted:Dumb question, but... There are certainly rules against collusion between teams, but I'm not sure what the actual wording of the rules are. Trades also need to be approved by the NFL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 16:35
|
|
|
Dominion posted:There are certainly rules against collusion between teams, but I'm not sure what the actual wording of the rules are. Trades also need to be approved by the NFL. "No, you can NOT trade Bernard Pollard to whomever is playing the Patriots for the first 6 weeks of the season"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 17:27
|
|
|
Dramatika posted:"No, you can NOT trade Bernard Pollard to whomever is playing the Patriots for the first 6 weeks of the season" Actually, this I think you could do. Usually, collusion rules boil down to "every trade must be at least reasonably in the best interests of both teams". So Pats/Vikes can't just bounce Moss back and forth, because there's no reason to. You can't argue that the Pats are improving their team by both getting rid of AND getting back Moss, so the 2nd trade would probably get overturned. However, trading Pollard from team A to team B to team C etc, would probably be legal, as long as each individual trade was legit on both sides. Still would never happen, but I don't think it would be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
Why do quarterbacks always seem to put a hat on when they're on the sidelines?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:Why do quarterbacks always seem to put a hat on when they're on the sidelines? The NFL has contracts with companies that require players/coaches to wear that company's apparel on the sidelines. Not only does anything you wear have to be Reebok, but you also HAVE to wear it (I think).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 14:34
|
|
|
I wish they would have some sort of throwback week where the coaches could wear suits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 15:52
|
|
|
Cane Break posted:I wish they would have some sort of throwback week where the coaches could wear suits. I think they did this once
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
Pop Dog posted:I think they did this once It was Del Rio and I think Mike Nolan when he was the coach of the niners. And I think the NFL only let them do it for home games. I want to see Belichick in a suit
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
SteelAngel2000 posted:It was Del Rio and I think Mike Nolan when he was the coach of the niners. And I think the NFL only let them do it for home games. I remember this for Nolan. I think he was allowed to wear one twice a year at home games, but they had to be the NFL suit jackets that had garish team colors lining them. This was a big deal in northern California at the time. I'm unsure why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
SteelAngel2000 posted:I want to see Belichick in a suit  The other dude rocking it is Pepper Johnson.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
Pron on VHS posted:The NFL has contracts with companies that require players/coaches to wear that company's apparel on the sidelines. Not only does anything you wear have to be Reebok, but you also HAVE to wear it (I think). You don't HAVE to wear a hat, but if you do it must be Reebok. Most QBs put on a hat because they have messy or stupid looking helmet-hair and they know they're on camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
JGdmn posted:
I think it was because his dad was a coach in San Francisco and was loved by the fans and always wore a suit, so Nolan was trying to honor him or something and the fans loved it until they realized that Mike Nolan is terrible
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
Pop Dog posted:I think they did this once The suits were also made by Reebok because it's the only clothing coaches are allowed to wear on the sidelines. They were specially designed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 04:34
|
|
|
nnnAdam posted:The suits were also made by Reebok because it's the only clothing coaches are allowed to wear on the sidelines. They were specially designed. That's loving ridiculous, wow. I may have missed it skimming through this thread, but could anybody possibly give me a rundown on how broadcast/Internet rights get divided up, what gets paid for stuff, things like that. I remember some conversations in TRP about how soccer's broadcasting deals are different to most major American sports, it would be good to have some concrete examples of what's different
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
I'm sorry to bother you guys about this but I wasn't sure who to bother. My father called me up and was looking for a decent place he can stream live games, presumably all of them. The official ESPN stuff I've looked at doesn't always seem to carry the games he is looking for (Ravens), and the few attempts I've made to find something for him result in a lot of ESPN search hits and some dodgy looking websites. Do you guys recommend anything? He doesn't mind if there is a subscription required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
Synnr posted:I'm sorry to bother you guys about this but I wasn't sure who to bother. Three basic placed that I go for streams: https://www.channelsurfing.net https://www.atdhe.net http://www.firstrow.net/sports/american-football.html Edit: One other https://www.myp2p.eu Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Oct 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Three basic placed that I go for streams: If he doesn't mind seeing it after the fact, this is a good option for 50$. You don't have to worry about quality or streams being discovered and taken down by the league.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 22:39
|
|
