|
AquaticIguana posted:Why does everyone hate John Elway? Did he do something or did he just win a lot so gently caress him. Bronco, entitled prick, manipulated the draft, used-car-salesman looking rear end in a top hat
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
He's just easily hateable. I've got a signed poster from the guy and every time I see him in the owners box I am still like "yeah gently caress that guy"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
He got rid of Tebow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
AquaticIguana posted:Why does everyone hate John Elway? Did he do something or did he just win a lot so gently caress him. gently caress every QB who has ever beaten the Cardinals!!!! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:gently caress every QB ftfy
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Why is contact within 5 yards legal for DBs but not after? Does it have something to do with run blocking?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
To make it harder for the DBs to play bump and run; you can't wait until (for instance) right before the WR cuts at 10 yards to run his square in and then take your NFL-rationed one bump, you've got to do it near the line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:Why is contact within 5 yards legal for DBs but not after? Does it have something to do with run blocking? It's also a sop to reality. If a DB is unable to touch a receiver at all, he'll get beat every time because the receiver is going forward while the DB has to turn around to run with him. So a DB has to check the receiver in order to have a chance of staying with him. On the other hand, we don't want safeties whacking a receiver out of the blue 20 yards downfield and taking him completely out of the play. Thus the DBs can do their business within 5 yards of the line and have to let the receiver run his route beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:Why is contact within 5 yards legal for DBs but not after? Does it have something to do with run blocking? In addition to the previous responses, the rule came in as part of the sweeping changes in the late 70's to open up the game since offense was dead. The highest passer rating in 1977 was equivalent to what the Rams threw out there this year. pre:Avg. Team Scoring, Avg Team passer rating '76 268 points 63.6 <Switch to 16 game season, 4 preseason games. Eliminated WR clipping, headslap DB's allowed to only contact receivers once> '77 240 points 57.8 <5 yard DB contact rule. Offensive linemen allowed to extend arms while blocking and open their hands> '78 293 points 62.1 <Created in the grasp sacks Made a bunch of low blocks illegal Made altering / sharpening equipment illegal> '79 321 points 67.8 <Created the personal foul, banning blows to the head / neck / face> '80 328 points 71.3
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Hey, does wherever you got that have a semi-decent history of NFL rule changes? I've been looking for one forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Hey, does wherever you got that have a semi-decent history of NFL rule changes? I've been looking for one forever. Yeah, this is what I used for that: http://www.steelersfever.com/nfl_history_of_rules.html I think some of this stuff needs to be looked at further because: 2002 - The act of batting and stripping the ball from player possession is legalized. I watched from '94 on and can't ever recall this not being legal 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Yeah, this is what I used for that: http://www.steelersfever.com/nfl_history_of_rules.html That was illegal?! This is like when I found out zone defense was banned in the NBA until 2002.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
It's entirely possible that they'd done something like making it illegal in the 1940s for no reason and then just stopped calling it instead of taking it out of the rulebook (or it was a holdover from original NCAA rules that just stopped getting called). The NFL is very bad at keeping its rules in good order; IIRC there's some horrendously complicated bits in there somewhere that are written in complete non-English that only make sense when you remember that it used to be a penalty if you threw an incomplete pass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
My grandfather would always get really angry when people stripped balls and yelled for flags and things and I was always really confused about that. Maybe he was stuck in olde footballe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:It's entirely possible that they'd done something like making it illegal in the 1940s for no reason and then just stopped calling it instead of taking it out of the rulebook (or it was a holdover from original NCAA rules that just stopped getting called). The NFL is very bad at keeping its rules in good order; IIRC there's some horrendously complicated bits in there somewhere that are written in complete non-English that only make sense when you remember that it used to be a penalty if you threw an incomplete pass. I suspect it was made a rule in the first place due to somebody throwing a punch and then claiming he was aiming for the ball and missed. There was a lot of stuff about open hand versus closed fist at one point - an open hand was fine (for stripping the ball), but a closed fist was a punch and thus was out. The advent of face masks eliminated a lot of that stuff, and the rule was probably a vestige of that era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I suspect it was made a rule in the first place due to somebody throwing a punch and then claiming he was aiming for the ball and missed. There was a lot of stuff about open hand versus closed fist at one point - an open hand was fine (for stripping the ball), but a closed fist was a punch and thus was out. The advent of face masks eliminated a lot of that stuff, and the rule was probably a vestige of that era. I think it goes back further than that. In Rugby League(and possibly Union as well?) the first tackler in is not allowed to go after the ball and must just make the tackle. If a second person joins the tackle he can try to strip. I learned this when a buddy from Queensland(Australia's League heartland) got really mad at me for going for the strip jokingly in a game of touch rugby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I suspect it was made a rule in the first place due to somebody throwing a punch and then claiming he was aiming for the ball and missed. There was a lot of stuff about open hand versus closed fist at one point - an open hand was fine (for stripping the ball), but a closed fist was a punch and thus was out. The advent of face masks eliminated a lot of that stuff, and the rule was probably a vestige of that era. I wonder if that's why the NFL rulebook refers to "a Bat or Punch" as a means of propelling the football? drunk leprechaun posted:I think it goes back further than that. In Rugby League(and possibly Union as well?) the first tackler in is not allowed to go after the ball and must just make the tackle. If a second person joins the tackle he can try to strip. Wrong way round - one-on-one can steal the ball, but if there are ever two players in the tackle you can't (and if you just strip it out without catching it you'll probably be deemed to have knocked on). He's probably remembering the original form of the law, which banned ball steals entirely, and it didn't go into the Australian book until 1991, so. (If anyone needs some football methadone, Rugby League will be on Fox Soccer Plus, all good streaming websites, and some rubbish ones as well, through the summer; the World Club Challenge between the British and Australian champions is this weekend; look for "Super League" or "National Rugby League" in the listings.) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:
Hrmmm..... I did it solo and got yelled at for sure. Now I'm just all kinds of confused as to what the hell actually happened, but that I accurate for most of my experience playing rugby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
Well, and in touch generally you can't go for the ball because it's against the idea of a non-contact sport.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Has the NFL ever considered prorating the salary cap for each team to account for state income taxes? Theoretically, the Texas and Florida shitshows have a competitive advantage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Cruel and Unusual posted:Has the NFL ever considered prorating the salary cap for each team to account for state income taxes? Theoretically, the Texas and Florida shitshows have a competitive advantage. I don't think so, particularly since there are special athlete/performer tax rates designed to make sure every state gets its cut. The overall advantage is negligible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Tennessee and Washington don't have income tax either, but it doesn't seem like the Titans, Seahawks, Cowboys, Texas, Dolphins, Jaguars, and Buccaneers are getting any sort of competitive edge from tax structures. For one, most of those teams have even awful for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Tennessee and Washington don't have income tax either, but it doesn't seem like the Titans, Seahawks, Cowboys, Texas, Dolphins, Jaguars, and Buccaneers are getting any sort of competitive edge from tax structures. For one, most of those teams have even awful for a long time. The ability to draw big free agents doesn't really correlate to success in the NFL. Most of the truly successful teams draft well, acquire FA's that aren't cap killers, and have solid coaching staffs. The Pats and Steelers rarely sign big name FA's or at least big contract ones and they are more successful than the Dolphins and the rest of those teams.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
I wasn't being entirely serious  Otherwise, we'd be talking about Dan Snyder and his eight rings
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Cruel and Unusual posted:Has the NFL ever considered prorating the salary cap for each team to account for state income taxes? Theoretically, the Texas and Florida shitshows have a competitive advantage. That also doesn't take into consideration teams that are very near state borders, where the players live a majority of the year 10 miles away in a different state. Or players spend the majority of their time in the state that drafted them and where they built their family and commute during the season. Taxes are complicated and all teams employ accountants that know their stuff CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Something that just occurred to me and this seemed like the only place to ask - in NCAA overtime, do you automatically win if your team is on defense first and gets a pick-6/fumble-for-TD?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Something that just occurred to me and this seemed like the only place to ask - in NCAA overtime, do you automatically win if your team is on defense first and gets a pick-6/fumble-for-TD? Per Wikipedia, yes, though I don't know if it's happened before? I vaguely recall reading that the shortest overtime on record was two plays (a touchdown and then an interception) on two possessions. Also Wikipedia might be wrong, obviously. I think the rulebook says the same thing but I'm anything but an expert on making sense of the NCAA rulebook. E: Wait yeah even I am pretty sure A.R. 3-1-3-I says exactly this: NCAA Football Rule Book 2013-14 posted:Other than on the try, Team B scores a touchdown after intercepting a forward pass, intercepting or recovering a backward pass or fumble, or returning a blocked field goal attempt. RULING: Period and game are ended, and Team B is the winner. Basil Hayden fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Something that just occurred to me and this seemed like the only place to ask - in NCAA overtime, do you automatically win if your team is on defense first and gets a pick-6/fumble-for-TD? I don't think so. I don't think you can advance a turnover in overtime. The team's possession just ends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I don't think so. I don't think you can advance a turnover in overtime. The team's possession just ends. Nope, wrongo. You can advance an INT for a score and the game ends. Here is the relevant section: quote:Extra Periods
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
OK, thanks. I guess what I've seen is where the turnover ends the game as a defensive stop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Ohio-Pitt ended that way in, oh, 2005 I think it was. I remember it well because a friend of mine was at the game and left in the fourth quarter before it was tied then missed hilarious OT. http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?id=252520195 Yep, 2005 Sash! fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
The other interesting quirk of the Kansas plan that people might be interested to know is that if Team A loses possession, their possession series is over. Even if Team A gets the ball back during the same down (certainly not impossible), the only way they're snapping the ball next is if they then score a touchdown. (Alternating-possession overtime is one of the great pieces of original thinking in sport, and one day when I have more money than sense I'm going to wangle it so's I can spend about three months sitting in archives, working out exactly how they hashed it out.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The other interesting quirk of the Kansas plan that people might be interested to know is that if Team A loses possession, their possession series is over. Even if Team A gets the ball back during the same down (certainly not impossible), the only way they're snapping the ball next is if they then score a touchdown. Hey, as a related question I'm less sure of the answer to, can a team score both offensively and then subsequently on defense in the same overtime period? If so, has that ever happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Basil Hayden posted:Hey, as a related question I'm less sure of the answer to, can a team score both offensively and then subsequently on defense in the same overtime period? If so, has that ever happened? Yeah, if they are going first they can score, then play defense and intercept or fumble recover for a TD. Not sure if it has happened though. I have seen a team intercept and then just immediately go to the ground in that situation, which is the smarter play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Can anybody explain, or point me in a good direction for a non-biased objective write up, why the last Superbowl ended up being so lopsided? I can guess that the first safety probably rattled Denver, and the Seahawks were in top form, but I'd assume there's more to it to have caused Denver to fall apart so badly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Can anybody explain, or point me in a good direction for a non-biased objective write up, why the last Superbowl ended up being so lopsided? I can guess that the first safety probably rattled Denver, and the Seahawks were in top form, but I'd assume there's more to it to have caused Denver to fall apart so badly. Stephen White at SBNation has a pretty good breakdown of what happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
That was very informative and entertaining. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
HMS Beagle posted:Stephen White at SBNation has a pretty good breakdown of what happened. That was an awesome link. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
How serious do teams drafting in position 20-32 an analysis of players like Clowney and other top 10 prospects? I can imagine teams like the Texans and Rams do a very thorough analysis of the top prospects and search for any red flags. But let's say if Clowney falls to 21 (he won't), are the Packers then "what the hell did all those other teams find out? We don't actually know anything about this guy except his tape and combine numbers, do we take the risk?", or did they spend enough time on each prospect to make a decent decision?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
OperaMouse posted:How serious do teams drafting in position 20-32 an analysis of players like Clowney and other top 10 prospects? I would imagine in today's NFL it's the latter, because while it is rare that a guy projected as a top 5, or even possible first overall pick falls like that far, it does happen every few years. Off-hand, guys like Aaron Rodgers, Randy Moss, and Brady Quinn were projected very high, with Rodgers having been in the discussion for 1st overall in 2005, and all fell to the 20's for one reason or another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 20:41
|
|
