|
SPM posted:Are there any other websites than NFL.com for video highlights of the games? Longer/more than 5 seconds break down of key plays? What you want to do is record the Sunday night game on Channel 4 and let Mike Carlson explain it all.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
If an Option QB is tackled behind the line when he is clearly on a designed run, is it listed as a sack?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
If it's obviously a run it will be counted as a negative rush. If it could go either way usually they'll look at like the blocking to decide between sack or TFL. If the player makes any attempt to pass at any time it is considered a sack. Another fun fact is that if the Quarterback is forced out of bounds as he's going for a pass it's considered a sack (usually credited to the player getting pressure but if your quarterback is dumb and runs say, out of the back of the end zone, it's credited as a team sack but not an individual one)
GNU Order fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Sep 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
GNU Order posted:If it's obviously a run it will be counted as a negative rush. If it could go either way usually they'll look at like the blocking to decide between sack or TFL. If the player makes any attempt to pass at any time it is considered a sack. Another fun fact is that if the Quarterback is forced out of bounds as he's going for a pass it's considered a sack (usually credited to the player getting pressure but if your quarterback is dumb and runs say, out of the back of the end zone, it's credited as a team sack but not an individual one) I always thought running out of bounds counted as a negative rush. Go figure 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Yup, the Dan Orlovsky run out of the endzone that i alluded to was credited as a sack to Jared Allen who was coming on pressure. The key point is that the ballcarrier looks up for a pass, at that point it's a sack http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=281012016
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:I always thought running out of bounds counted as a negative rush. Go figure Quite a few of David Carr's huge pile of sacks when he was a Texan were from him running out of bounds a yard behind the LOS while still clutching the football. My high school QB was the same way - wouldn't throw the loving ball away under any circumstances. Carr made the early Texans' shaky OLine look worse on paper and they took the blame for a lot of his problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Especially with how the NFL wants to crack down on concussions and the like, if a player receives two defensive personal fouls, why isn't there any harsher penalty (like removal from the game) than just the usual 15-yard penalties? Specifically I'm watching the TB/Jets game, and Dashon Goldson basically lit up two Jets players and sent them both out for concussion testing, netting him two personal fouls. And yet, I guess he can still go out there and play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:Especially with how the NFL wants to crack down on concussions and the like, if a player receives two defensive personal fouls, why isn't there any harsher penalty (like removal from the game) than just the usual 15-yard penalties? Specifically I'm watching the TB/Jets game, and Dashon Goldson basically lit up two Jets players and sent them both out for concussion testing, netting him two personal fouls. And yet, I guess he can still go out there and play. The league will fine the poo poo out of him. Suspensions aren't out of the question either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
When they change the markings on the field, for example the Superbowl, how do they get rid of the old markings? I guess on grass, you could just wait long enough and mow it, but what if you don't have that kind of time? What about turf? I'm picturing some guy driving around on the field on some industrial carpet cleaning vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:When they change the markings on the field, for example the Superbowl, how do they get rid of the old markings? I guess on grass, you could just wait long enough and mow it, but what if you don't have that kind of time? What about turf? I'm picturing some guy driving around on the field on some industrial carpet cleaning vehicle. Pretty sure the paint is water soluble, so they just turn on the sprinklers. If not, they have green paint and can paint over it, then paint over that. If it is actual grass, they can tear it up and put down fresh sod.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
swickles posted:Pretty sure the paint is water soluble, so they just turn on the sprinklers. If not, they have green paint and can paint over it, then paint over that. And if you're the Redskins a guy with a rake just stirs the dirt up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:And if you're the Redskins a guy with a rake just stirs the dirt up. Heinz Field just spreads some sand, kitty litter, and grass clippings and calls it a day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Question for you football experts: Just how good do you think Sam Bradford will end up being? Is there any other QB you would compare him to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
What exactly is the difference between "helping the runner," which is a foul, and "driving the pile?" For example, in yesterday's game CIN @ CHI, at about 4:30 left in the 3rd quarter, some of the Chicago o-line just blatantly have their back towards the pile and are just pushing and pushing backwards. Is that allowed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
MustLoveContras posted:Question for you football experts: Just how good do you think Sam Bradford will end up being? Is there any other QB you would compare him to? There was some Rams chat this week in N/V starting here. Gendo's post probably has the most actual analysis. Basically if it wasn't for the contract people wouldn't be as down on them as they are in my opinion. He doesn't seem to be a world beater or anything but he's had close to Gabbert levels of help his first few years. OperaMouse posted:What exactly is the difference between "helping the runner," which is a foul, and "driving the pile?" I honestly don't know, short of literally picking up the guy and running with him it just seems like one of those rules that is never ever called. I guess it prevents weird things like having a guy kneel down in the backfield on goal line carries so the RB can use him like a ramp maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:What exactly is the difference between "helping the runner," which is a foul, and "driving the pile?" I believe the factor is whether the other offensive players are directly contacting the ball carrier to push or pull him forward. If the ball carrier is engaged with one or more defenders, it's legal to try to knock the defender(s) off of him. When it gets to those huge goal-line scrums where it's several guys on each side with a ball carrier somewhere in the middle, I think the officials just see which way the pile is moving and use the forward progress rule to decide when to whistle the play dead. I have watched a lot of football and I honestly can't recall when I've seen "helping the runner" called as a penalty. USC at Notre Dame in 2005 is probably the most blatant example I've seen, but it wasn't called. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxRK1jcCMsk
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:I believe the factor is whether the other offensive players are directly contacting the ball carrier to push or pull him forward. If the ball carrier is engaged with one or more defenders, it's legal to try to knock the defender(s) off of him. The NFL and NCAA rules are interestingly (for a given value of "interesting") different on this point. NFL 12-1-4: quote:No offensive player may: NCAA 9-3-2: quote:Interfering for or Helping the Ball Carrier or Passer The NCAA rule has changed this year to allow offensive players to push or charge into ball carriers. So yeah, it's all academic because all the supervisors don't want it called; the standard weasel-out is to give forward progress at the point where the runner was first assisted. Fortunately, I do have a couple of clips from high school games of it actually being called. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w-sANh26_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHjWzKqGmL8 And this one, which is an example of them using the forward progress weasel-out, but hopefully it illustrates why assisting the runner was made illegal in the first place (they're two of the oldest rules in football, and they were put in the book in 1907 as a direct response to Teddy Roosevelt's demand that football had to be made safer or he'd ban colleges from playing it) and why I get so annoyed at people who don't understand what it's for telling their guys not to call it. Having said that... quote:I have watched a lot of football and I honestly can't recall when I've seen "helping the runner" called as a penalty. USC at Notre Dame in 2005 is probably the most blatant example I've seen, but it wasn't called. All I see on the Bush Push is Leinart hitting the line, spinning off to the left, chipping Bush briefly and then falling over the line. For me there's no foul here because I don't see what Bush did as being material in any way to Leinart getting where he got. If Bush had been in contact with Leinart at the same time as a defender, or if he'd been pulling or dragging him, I may well have a different opinion; but in a world where we call assisting the runner, I'd be putting that on a training tape as an example of when not to call it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I guess it prevents weird things like having a guy kneel down in the backfield on goal line carries so the RB can use him like a ramp maybe? this would be amazing. Or letting the team's biggest lineman throw Danny Woodhead over the opposing team for a TD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Xguard86 posted:this would be amazing. Or letting the team's biggest lineman throw Danny Woodhead over the opposing team for a TD. They used to do that and people got all dead and stuff and really slowed down the pace of the game, which is why those rules are now in place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
How do casinos come up with the odds for bets? Do they have expert statisticians?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:How do casinos come up with the odds for bets? Do they have expert statisticians? Of course. The odds are always stacked so that the house inevitably wins in the long run. For betting on sporting events, the line is chosen based on public perception. The goal is to get equal amounts bet on both sides, so the losers pay the winners and the house cut means a profit regardless of who wins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Maybe not a rookie question, but has there been any analysis done on comparitive costs for assembling various prototypical defenses/offenses? Is an average 4-3 defense more expensive than the average 3-4? I know that PEte Carroll is known for utilizing a lot of guys on defense with less "prototypical" builds and talents, and I'm wondering if that results in a more effective defense based on cost... Basically is there a "moneyball" approach to team assembly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:Basically is there a "moneyball" approach to team assembly? Not at the NFL level. At least, not anymore. Getting a player stuck between safety and linebacker used to be pretty easy but now everyone knows that they're Tampa 2 guys and so on and so forth. Unless you buy that nonsense about white wide receivers being undervalued.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:Maybe not a rookie question, but has there been any analysis done on comparitive costs for assembling various prototypical defenses/offenses? Is an average 4-3 defense more expensive than the average 3-4? I know that PEte Carroll is known for utilizing a lot of guys on defense with less "prototypical" builds and talents, and I'm wondering if that results in a more effective defense based on cost... Stuff like that has permeated the sport but something to keep in mind is statistical relevance. A typical NFL players career is 3-5 years and in terms of total games thats less than half a single season of play for a baseball player. Statistical modeling, advanced metrics, and price arbitrage (aka Moneyball) in baseball relies on multiple samples for a single player with each typically 10 times larger than football. Barudak fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
The actual "Moneyball approach" is to get guys that are good at one thing and bad at most things and put them in a position to maximize their value, and sure, there are NFL teams that are good at doing that (insert fiveaces.png here). But it's a lot more complicated than calling your base a 4-3 vs. 3-4 (I cannot think of a more meaningless distinction in football at this point) or a linebacker vs. a safety.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Also, nowadays opponents will mercilessly pick on whatever weaknesses a player shows. For example, quarterbacks that recognize a man-to-man corner who's in zone coverage will throw at them all day. The worst thing you can be in the NFL right now is predictable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
On last week's late hit against Geno Smith, I keep seeing people argue that it was a bad call because Geno Smith's foot wasn't out of bounds technically when the hit occurred because his foot touched down after the push, and despite most of him being out of bounds, that doesn't matter. I think that's silly, but I cannot find anything that I can source on this. If I look at the NFL rulebook on their site for out of bounds ruling, it's just about how yes, the foot needs to come down to be out of bounds. So what is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
We're talking about this play, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7zLsEZ2qhw Now, I think this is an absolutely dogshit awful call, and I really am baffled as to why the NFL's supporting it publically with a fine. However, I can also understand exactly where it comes from, and I'm not gonna bag on the calling officials any for taking it out of their pants; but before I can start talking about why, we need to think about late hits more generally. This goes outside the rulebook quite a way. You're quite right, a player (including the quarterback) is not out of bounds until his foot has touched out of bounds. However, there's a seperate little philosophy about calling late hits out of bounds on quarterbacks. It came from one of the old unwritten rules/gentlemen's agreements of football: "you leave our QB alone when he's scrambling out of bounds, and we'll leave your QB alone when he's scrambling out of bounds". Simple enough principle, no? And naturally, how officials treat late hits out of bounds against quarterbacks has evolved to reflect this. Ordinarily, you will not see a foul called for a late hit out of bounds unless the defender committed himself to contact after the player lands his first foot out of bounds. At any point before that moment he's a runner, it's legal to hit the runner, and the defender is entitled to deny him a few inches of forward progress/try to force a fumble/etc. However, if he sees (or could have seen) that the runner is out of bounds and then initiates contact, that's what we want to call. Now, it's easier to understand this sort of thing with video, so let's have a high school clip that illustrates this really well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbUsajKlpPA You can quite clearly see the runner's foot come down out of bounds, and then the defender initiates contact, easy call for the L. Here's a college game with a tight but correct no-call. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgYy3HNlgGQ The hit was initiated before the runner was out of bounds; so it may look bad, but it's not a foul. OK, but quarterbacks are different, right? Scrambling quarterbacks often put up this giant flashing neon sign that reads HEY GUYS I'M RUNNING OUT OF BOUNDS NOW in order to save themselves a hit; and it's become accepted that when they do this, you shouldn't hit them and you could draw a personal foul penalty in that situation, even if technically speaking it isn't a late hit out of bounds (one of the rare occasions where being technically correct is not, in fact, the best kind of correct). Here's a couple of good examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv7PiUHRmEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pr8hIzNefk In both of these clips the contact is initiated (to a point where the defender could no longer stop if he'd tried) before the QB is actually out of bounds; but he's a QB and he's got his neon sign switched on. Same reason as you call personal fouls on players who hit sliding quarterbacks and the contact occurs during the sliding motion before they've become down by rule. So, all that in mind, why do I think this particular call is a horrible dogshit call that should have got the calling officials a big fat downgrade? There's another consideration that should be taken into account, that just didn't trigger on the day (and God knows I've done similar things more than once before now, which is why I say I can understand why they made a poor call on the field; it's not a scabs-on-the-Hail-Mary "what the gently caress was he even looking at???" call.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7zLsEZ2qhw We'll ignore for the moment that Geno Smith is clearly in gaining-yardage mode and for me doesn't have his neon sign on. Even if he'd done that, I still wouldn't expect this to be called because it's at the line to gain. You can see the chain crew guy bravely running away, and Smith flying over the top of the little thing they put on the ground to show players where the front stick is. Defenders have to be allowed to protect the line to gain in this situation. And it's not as though he came up with a brick in his hand and did something that looked like targeting, it was just a two-hand push to get the guy OOB and down as quick as possible. So I'm not surprised that Lavonte David's appealing the fine, and insofar as anyone has a good chance of getting the NFL office to back down on anything when they think they're in the right, he's got a good chance of winning if they present his case properly. Hopefully that made a few bits of sense for all y'all first downies! (My fee is £500 an hour plus currency conversion charges.) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for all of that, Trin. Now I'm not sure where I stand on it, but your last bit about the line isn't something I ever considered either. Thank you so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
This is kinda a dumb question but has there ever been a majorly successful punt defense? Like, in the sense of has anyone ever gotten back there and taken down the kicker? I always see it and kinda wonder what the purpose of it is other than maybe stopping a fake out?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:This is kinda a dumb question but has there ever been a majorly successful punt defense? Like, in the sense of has anyone ever gotten back there and taken down the kicker? I always see it and kinda wonder what the purpose of it is other than maybe stopping a fake out? I'm not really sure what you're asking. Punts get blocked fairly regularly. Snaps get messed up and sometimes punters drop the ball. Thus, sending rushers is usually a good idea. The punter stands back so far so that he has time to catch the ball and kick it before the rushers get there under most circumstances. What do you mean by "punt defense" specifically?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:This is kinda a dumb question but has there ever been a majorly successful punt defense? Like, in the sense of has anyone ever gotten back there and taken down the kicker? I always see it and kinda wonder what the purpose of it is other than maybe stopping a fake out? Absolutely. Can't think of a specific time though. I remember seeing a guy that got a high snap and needed an extra second to deal with it and got totally blown up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
I get the feeling that like much of football, the punting game is kind of a mutual assured destruction where both sides presume certain behaviors and the REALLY shady stuff is called by the officials. You will get cases like this past Thursday where the Jets sent their returner up to block the gunners while NOBODY was back to return the punt, but those are the exception to the rule. (That was absolutely hilarious, BTW.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
Why is lack of "playing under center" a valid criticism of college spread offense QBs transitioning to the NFL? What is its inherent benefit over playing out of the shotgun?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Why is lack of "playing under center" a valid criticism of college spread offense QBs transitioning to the NFL? What is its inherent benefit over playing out of the shotgun? See 2006 Rex Grossman for more details. But also its because of footwork, and being able to sell a valid play-action pass. In the evolving NFL where the run game isn't as important, the ability to play under center is also less important. Its mostly about getting the ball out of the QB's hands and the scheme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Why is lack of "playing under center" a valid criticism of college spread offense QBs transitioning to the NFL? What is its inherent benefit over playing out of the shotgun? It comes down to the fact that a lot of NFL schemes have the QB playing under center. If you play your HS and college career from the shotgun you are simply not used to to center-QB exchange which as a former center can be a bit awkward. There is no benefit really it is just that the NFL is stuck in their way and want a QB to be able to take a snap under center.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Someone who knows better than me will hopefully pop in (and if I'm wrong on any of this correct me), but to get the obvious part out of the way most NFL offenses are run primarily from under center. This is changing a bit now as the Pistol formation starts to make it's way into the league and everyone at least has a shotgun package, but if you've only very rarely had to take a drop from under center in college it is something new you will have to learn. Occasionally you'll hear about a guy who has trouble just taking the snap cleanly. It's supposed to be easier to read defenses from the shotgun pre-snap and probably is since you're a little farther away/able to see more at once, so learning to do that from under center is also an issue. As to the benefits of running an offense under center vs the shotgun I've always heard that it's supposed to be easier to disguise whether you're going to run/what type of run it will be on any given play--and from there the play action passing game. From your classic Shotgun look with the halfback lined up to the left of the QB you probably won't see many straight up off tackle runs to the left because it's awkward to make that hand off for instance, or vice versa if the HB is on the other side. How big of a deal this really is I have no idea, but that's part of how I've heard it explained. The Pistol mitigates this to some extent, either almost completely or barely depending on if whoever you're listening to is bragging about it or criticizing it. I believe there is some argument about just how valid the criticism is when scouting college QBs by the way. Lots of QBs from spread shotgun offenses have failed in the NFL but...well most of them fail anyway no matter what they ran in college. e: I type all slow. Another thing worth noting is that even if we were able to prove somehow that a spread look from the shotgun was undoubtedly the best way to run an offense most coaches wouldn't change unless we'd been dominating the league like that for years (preferably with an average quarterback) because almost all of them are conservative by nature. I don't mean conservative in a football sense exactly, but they wouldn't be used to the idea and would probably stick to what worked for them in the past. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Sep 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
I don't know if there's a team in the NFL that doesn't run some plays out of the "I" or isolation formation. At the very least, you have a number of plays in your book for short yardage situations - close to either end zone or the down to gain line. Here's one example: The traditional, short yardage, Power I has the QB over center, with a Fullback (#3) behind him and a Tailback (#2) or other running back behind the FB. Player #4 could be another TE or fullback/halfback/running back. If you're not comfortable taking the snap and handling the exchange in tight quarters like this, I imagine it can take some time getting used to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
What are good twitter feeds to follow for football updates? I'm finding it's way easier and quicker than visiting sites to hope for an article to come out. Right now all I have is Adam Schefter. I'm a Broncos and Lions fan, so beyond general stuff anyone who's got good info about those teams would be great as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Chris Mortenson (@mortreport) Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) Rich Eisen (@RichEisen) Evan Silva (@EvanSilva) Rotoworld Football (@Rotoworld_FB) Sigmund Bloom (@SigmundBloom) I'm sure I'm forgetting more good ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 23:31
|
|
