|
Henchman of Santa posted:In the pro game? You can't have an NFL career if you can't reliably hit from 50-55. In college, the record is 69 yards. In practice there was a guy hitting from 80 yards out.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Wonder if it's easier to kick that smaller ball farther.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:Uhhhh.... no. We are getting to the point where we are beginning to expect our kickers to make those shots. I don't think we are at the point where we have 32 guys (96 if you somehow have trouble finding a longsnapper and/or holder) who can reliably make those shots. Maybe I'm spoiled because Jason Hanson was my team's kicker for literally my entire life until he retired a few years ago, and he had range to 56.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Maybe I'm spoiled because Jason Hanson was my team's kicker for literally my entire life until he retired a few years ago, and he had range to 56. This surprised me, because I think of Hanson as being a great kicker (and he was), but he was barely better than a coin flip on 50+ for his career (52/93). Seabass is 53/94. The difference between them and other kickers I'd put around their level is they've tried WAY more from 50+ than everyone else. There are some higher volume guys above 60%, but Gostkowski is the only tenured kicker with a REALLY good FGM%, maybe because he's only been sent out to kick 23 ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:AT&T Park Those are awful strange emoticons for freezing your rear end off. Also, I really like the idea of using baseball fields to host football games.  I think the pendulum will start to swing the other way once cities realize how much money they're wasting on stadiums and try again to use the same facility for both. The angles are weird when you build for the infield, but it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Those are awful strange emoticons for freezing your rear end off. My baseball and football watching was forged in Candlestick. If I'm freezing my rear end off at least it's the same goddamned temperature for more than 10 minutes at a time
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:This surprised me, because I think of Hanson as being a great kicker (and he was), but he was barely better than a coin flip on 50+ for his career (52/93). Seabass is 53/94. The difference between them and other kickers I'd put around their level is they've tried WAY more from 50+ than everyone else. There are some higher volume guys above 60%, but Gostkowski is the only tenured kicker with a REALLY good FGM%, maybe because he's only been sent out to kick 23 ever. And the circumstances of the kick matter too. Sometimes the team is out of timeouts and has to rush the guy out to kick in lik 14 seconds. I bet if you seperated that out, those kicks have the worst percentage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Does anyone know where I can find weekly offense team stats? Like this but weekly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Badfinger posted:This surprised me, because I think of Hanson as being a great kicker (and he was), but he was barely better than a coin flip on 50+ for his career (52/93). Seabass is 53/94. The difference between them and other kickers I'd put around their level is they've tried WAY more from 50+ than everyone else. There are some higher volume guys above 60%, but Gostkowski is the only tenured kicker with a REALLY good FGM%, maybe because he's only been sent out to kick 23 ever. I just want to point out that I grew up with beaver ((gostowski) he is a good friend of my younger brother), and he is a cool dude IRL
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
E: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
E: wrong thread again
Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Oct 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
E: still wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:E: wrong thread Thermos H Christ posted:E: wrong thread again Thermos H Christ posted:E: still wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
swickles posted:And the circumstances of the kick matter too. Sometimes the team is out of timeouts and has to rush the guy out to kick in lik 14 seconds. I bet if you seperated that out, those kicks have the worst percentage. Absolutely. Belichick isn't sending Gostkowski out for a 53 yarder on 4th and 1 in the 2nd quarter, Brady's just lining up and sneaking it for a first down. Weather, game situation, game time, coach all have an impact on kickers good enough to be "good kickers".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
How common is it for a team that was wrecking teams left and right last year in the Carolina Panthers to start out as bad as they have this year? What's gone wrong with them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
El Seano posted:How common is it for a team that was wrecking teams left and right last year in the Carolina Panthers to start out as bad as they have this year? What's gone wrong with them? The Super Bowl loser failing to get back to even the playoffs is actually fairly common, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:The Super Bowl loser failing to get back to even the playoffs is actually fairly common, IIRC. 2004 Carolina Panthers 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:The Super Bowl loser failing to get back to even the playoffs is actually fairly common, IIRC. Just for historical context, here's how the Super Bowl losers fared the next season this century. 2000: New York Giants -- next year: 7-9, miss playoffs 2001: St. Louis Rams -- next year: 7-9, miss playoffs 2002: Oakland Raiders -- next year: 4-12, miss playoffs 2003: Carolina Panthers -- next year: 7-9 miss playoffs 2004: Philadelphia Eagles -- next year: 6-10, miss playoffs 2005: Seattle Seahawks -- next year: 9-7, win NFC West, lose in Divisional Round 2006: Chicago Bears -- next year: 7-9, miss playoffs 2007: New England Patriots -- next year: 11-5, miss playoffs 2008: Arizona Cardinals -- next year: 10-6, win NFC West, lose in Divisional Round 2009: Indianapolis Colts -- next year: 10-6, win AFC South, lose in Wild Card Round 2010: Pittsburgh Steelers -- next year: 12-4, earn wild card spot, lose in Wild Card Round 2011: New England Patriots -- next year: 12-4, win AFC East, lose in AFC Championship Game 2012: San Francisco 49ers -- next year: 12-4, earn wild card spot, lose in NFC Championship Game 2013: Denver Broncos -- next year: 12-4, win AFC West, lose in Divisional Round 2014: Seattle Seahawks -- next year: 10-6, earn wild card spot, lose in Divisional Round So the Super Bowl Hangover was a real thing for a few years in the early 2000s, but as you can see from above it's actually a longer trend for teams to stay successful and return to the playoffs, often dominating as well (see all the double-digit wins and division titles). How did that narrative stick, anyway? And why do people keep referring to it? It's been demonstrably dead and buried this decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
In the cases where a team makes it to the Superbowl then struggles the following year is that usually a symptom of them losing their best players in free agency? Like the Panthers losing Norman for example? Also how the gently caress did the Pats win 11 games and still not make the playoffs? Surely there cannot be many more examples of winning double digit games and not making the playoffs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
El Seano posted:Also how the gently caress did the Pats win 11 games and still not make the playoffs? Surely there cannot be many more examples of winning double digit games and not making the playoffs? Finished with the same record as the Dolphins, who got tiebreaker advantages. The Wild Card teams were the Colts (12-4) and Ravens (11-5, got in on tiebreakers). That was also the year Brady tore his ACL in Week 1, and the Pats managed to convince people that Matt Cassel was good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
El Seano posted:
The Chargers got in at 8-8 that year and people got real mad and New England fans started demanding that Division winners not get an auto berth in the playoffs
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
El Seano posted:Also how the gently caress did the Pats win 11 games and still not make the playoffs? Surely there cannot be many more examples of winning double digit games and not making the playoffs? Arizona went 10-6 in 2013 and didn't make it. Even if they had gone 11-5, they still wouldn't have made it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Also the Giants in 2010 went 10-6 and missed the playoffs because of tiebreakers. Same happened to the Browns in 2007. Prior to recently, it also happened a few times in the late 80s and early 90s, in the old NFC West where 10 win teams were left out a few times (Saints once, 49ers in 91), and I think the NFC East as well once or twice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
I also remember people getting real mad when the NFC West was so bad you could go to the playoffs with a losing record.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Yeah, there was a lot of griping about the NFC West, and teams getting home playoff games with 8-8 (Or worse) records. I remember a lot of complaints about the Cardinals in 2008 cause they got slaughtered a few times late in the year, including at the Patriots, but that died off once the playoffs started and they went to the Super Bowl. Same sort of thing obviously happened with the 7-9 Seahawks in 2010, and to a lesser extent the 2011 Giants winning the East at 9-7 with a negative point differential. Since then, there seems to be a lot less complaining when teams with bad records get in...
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Personally I'm just amazed the Browns ever won 10 games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
El Seano posted:Personally I'm just amazed the Browns ever won 10 games. If you want to go waaaaaay the hell back they were a legit dynasty. Think Pats but more dominant, went to 10 straight Championship games between 1946 and 1955, winning 7. In the Super Bowl era it's been rough though, even when they were good they would go out of the playoffs in the most painful ways. And of course since the franchise reboot they've just been awful. e: well sorta 10 straight, the first 5 were in the AAFC which was a competing league to the NFL. They still went the first 5 years after they were admitted to the NFL. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
everything dies. that's a fact. maybe everything that dies someday comes back
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:If you want to go waaaaaay the hell back they were a legit dynasty. Think Pats but more dominant, went to 10 straight Championship games between 1946 and 1955, winning 7. In the Super Bowl era it's been rough though, even when they were good they would go out of the playoffs in the most painful ways. The Browns and Lions were the dominant teams of the 50s. One day maybe we can return to that glorious time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:The Browns and Lions were the dominant teams of the 50s. One day maybe we can return to that glorious time. They'll probably be the dominant teams of the 2050's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:They'll probably be the dominant teams of the 2050's. Like the Browns will be able to keep a QB healthy even in the simulated world of neural networked cyberfootball.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Like the Browns will be able to keep a QB healthy even in the simulated world of neural networked cyberfootball. Every Bucs cyberplayer hit with a virus infection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
I was watching the Falcons Broncos game and the commentators kept going on about the Broncos QB being new to the huddle, not being used to it. I'm assuming it's something to do with the difference between college/NFL in terms of tactics but could someone explain. Also my choice of Falcons as my team is working well. I'm used to crushing disappointment as a West Ham fan. Is this coming some time soon or are they really looking as good as they seem to my uncultured British eyes ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:I was watching the Falcons Broncos game and the commentators kept going on about the Broncos QB being new to the huddle, not being used to it. I'm assuming it's something to do with the difference between college/NFL in terms of tactics but could someone explain. Obviously every system is different, but a lot of college teams these days run some kind of up-tempo offense, where instead of huddling up the players move quickly to the line and get their playcall from sideline signals (this is the reason for all the wacky picture signs that TV cameras love showing). Paxton Lynch played in that kind of system at Memphis, so the more conventional NFL style of calling plays in the huddle will likely be an adjustment period for him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Benne posted:Obviously every system is different, but a lot of college teams these days run some kind of up-tempo offense, where instead of huddling up the players move quickly to the line and get their playcall from sideline signals (this is the reason for all the wacky picture signs that TV cameras love showing). Paxton Lynch played in that kind of system at Memphis, so the more conventional NFL style of calling plays in the huddle will likely be an adjustment period for him. OK that makes sense. Never watched any college football so thats passed me by. Im very new to all this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:OK that makes sense. Never watched any college football so thats passed me by. Im very new to all this. This is a fun look at how the concept of the signs and signals works to get the plays communicated in college. The team in the video is an NAIA team (think really tiny schools that aren't very good) but the concepts are the same. I like the archer and throat slash signals, they explain how the signs work toward the end. This video isn't as informative about what they actually mean but shows how much weird rear end verbiage goes on in the NFL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
the falcons are pretty middle of the road
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:I was watching the Falcons Broncos game and the commentators kept going on about the Broncos QB being new to the huddle, not being used to it. I'm assuming it's something to do with the difference between college/NFL in terms of tactics but could someone explain. Seahawks are gonna stomp all over them next Sunday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
v2vian man posted:the falcons are pretty middle of the road You obviously have never watched West Ham. Middle of the road suits me fine. Nothing worse than a glory hunting new fan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
What was the story with Michigan/Rutgers? Like, this is a serious beatdown with fake extra point conversions in the first half and going for it on fourth and goal with a 30 point lead... ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:40
|
|