|
Not graphical, but the shells are fairly easy to understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_coverage_shells The only confusing one is 6 since all the others are just referring to how many players have deep zone responsibility. e: 6 is basically a cover 3, except instead of everyone having a third of the field the coverage is rolled to one side, so two players have 1/4 of the field and the third guy is responsible for the other half of the field. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Nov 14, 2010 |
#
¿
Nov 14, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
If they're just talking it's fine (even according to the NCAA). The big no-no's are signing an agreement to be represented by the agent, taking benefits (in whatever form) from the agent or the agent's "runner's", or having the agent schedule workouts or gauge interest from a pro team. The cynic in most of us think the interest thing at least (let alone all the other violations that could come to pass) happens all the time, although ostensibly what you saw was on the up and up. From an NCAA page: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/July+latest+news/Guidelines+for+agents
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
JGdmn posted:I was watching a few clips of Gale Sayers the other night and wondered the same thing. Every person they interviewed said "fastest guy you've ever seen" and while he's outrunning the guys on the field, he looks like your average middle linebacker lumbering back an interception. I think my favorite way to watch these is just to watch in comparison to everyone else on the field. Sayers doesn't look fast (because of film or whatever the case is), but holy poo poo does he torch the other guys in those videos. The difference in speed between him and the guys chasing him definitely comes through. e: my personal guess based on nothing is that the elite guys were as fast or close to as fast as elite guys today, while the average speed was waaaaaay slower for the reasons Deteriorata pointed out. So the filming method coming into it does make some sense to me. But I have nothing other than my opinion backing me up. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Dec 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
DUNCAN DONUTS posted:Is there an official statement on why personal fouls (like the one on Oregon in the 4th quarter last night) are never shown on the replay? Is there any way for me to find out what happened in that instance or in any other instance of a personal foul? There isn't one, they showed the "excessive celebration" salute by K State and other things like that a lot. I think that was just the broadcast not having enough time (after they talk about stuff none of us want to hear for a while) before going to commercial or the next play. In the same game they replayed Fairley's personal foul once or twice for instance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
I think that's Green Bay, were they these? http://lombardiave.com/files/2010/11/throwback1.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
So this gif made me wonder: For some reason (due to me reading an ESPN article I think) I was under the impression that the correct thing for a quarterback to do was the crushing pebbles thing like Peyton Manning here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-gglATD5bI Brady is clearly bouncing, is he wrong in this instance or is this just an alternate theory of how to go about doing things? I mean I know Brady has excellent footwork in general, I guess that's why I ask.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2011 13:11
|
|
|
ch1mp posted:Searched, but did not see an answer. Is there any way to watch live NFL games on the internet on a laptop - not phone or tablet? Cost not a consideration. Actually, I might even buy a tablet if that's the only way. Try those free streams Deteriorata linked first. If you're not happy with that you can try http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/nflstonline/overview
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Vander posted:Well now I'm confused: What does the defense do to 'line up illegally'? The neutral zone is the length of the football, theoretically there should be nothing in there except the center's hand. So if you're not on your own side of where the ball was when it was spotted you're in the neutral zone and can be flagged. Generally it's not a problem for the offense since everyone lines up of off the center, but I suppose if someone lined up way out of position it would be a flag on the offense. Another instance where you might hear neutral zone infraction is when a defender jumps into the neutral zone but comes back to his own side of the ball, but the movement makes the offense jump. It used to be a false start until (I think this is generally agreed on) Neil Smith started doing it all the damned time. Then they changed the rule to where if the defense comes into the neutral zone before a false start the penalty is on the defense. e: Now that I think about it lining up in the neutral zone is usually called "Defense offside, ## lined up in the neutral zone." Neutral zone infraction is specific to the forcing the offense to jump I believe. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Sep 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 04:01
|
|
|
Tony Gonzalez has 2 carries in his career. Antonio Gates 0, Dallas Clark 4, Jason Witten 0. Mike Ditka had 2 for an older guy, not sure what other names from that era to check. Kellen Winslow Jr has one, Sr had 0. e: Ozzie Newsome had 18 career carries, 13 in his rookie season. And he never had one after '81. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Oct 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The skillset of a qb and a RB are different. And running the ball is loving dangerous. All the rules about protecting qbs is because they are delicate flowers that take up a bunch of payroll. I'd think another reason is that people don't want to ask a center to snap anywhere other than the regular shotgun position. Still you'd think someone would have tried this in college at some point (and they may have for all I know).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
McKracken posted:Wasn't this because he needed a way to stop LT from ruining his QB's. I've heard this given as an argument that Derrick Thomas was a better pash rusher than LT. LT had people learning how to deal with the insane speed rush while he was playing, DT played against schemes that were specifically made for a guy like him. It's likely partially bullshit and partially true and doesn't particularly matter at this point anyway--I heard this a lot back when Thomas wasn't in the hall and the theoretical reason was because he was a lot like Taylor without being him. But it's kind of interesting to think about in any case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 07:43
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:Whuh? LT had an entire position reinvented to try and counteract him. Yeah obviously it's a Chiefs homer argument, although there is a sort of sense to it. Like I said it's mostly BS with perhaps some truth, and in either case it's probably a derail for this thread. Also sorry I didn't spell out Taylor's name, I wasn't thinking about where I was posting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
I should also note that even people who buy that argument I posted about Derrick Thomas still think LT was the superior player (it's only about rushing the passer, LT was hell against the run too). If you catch any old highlights of Taylor on NFL Network or wherever they'll be worth watching, he was completely ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
In reality if we screw up and don't explain something well enough to be understood just ask. No one should be making fun of you for asking any (football related) question in this thread. There are enough weird football history guys floating around who like to talk about Lawrence Taylor and other people and what they meant to the game (or in my case what I've heard that they mean to the game) that you're doing us a favor as often as not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
DO YALL WANT A HAM posted:Can somebody explain to me if there are any advanced stats worth giving a gently caress about. Keep in mind that I will obstinately ignore them if they don't match up with my preconceived notions based mostly on dim memories of Mel Kiper Jr.'s evaluations and the skin color and apparent demeanor of the player. Along these lines, I'm trying to get a little more well versed in the Football Outsiders stuff. Fangraphs has a nice article for baseball stats on how large of a sample size you need for various stats to become reliable or significant. Does anything like this exist for the FO stats?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Also, there was video review before which was at the discretion of the ref in the booth (much like during the last 2 minutes of the half) but it ended after a controversial call. If this is the call what was controversial about it? That seems a pretty obvious overturn even without maximizing the window. Also I appreciated the Tony Mandarich sighting after the extra point, that's a name worth looking up for newbies when all of us TFF guys say draft offensive line no matter what.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2011 09:30
|
|
|
sc0tty posted:Why is Tim Tebow mentioned in like every thread in this forum? Is he hated, is he loved? I don't understand the storyline. I can't believe I'm going to write this many words about Tebow. The short answer is he's hated by some, ironically loved by others, and for real loved by yet others. He's a polarizing figure. He has a very legitimate case as the best college football player ever. Also by all accounts he is a ridiculously nice guy. He is also highly religious. Being religious isn't abnormal for players, but Tebow is also very evangelical. So you have this great football player who's the perfect kid who makes very sure to give all glory to Jesus publicly at every opportunity. There's a media frenzy around the guy that would be annoying no matter what, but in addition to that you have to constantly hear what a great guy he is any why abortion is wrong and why God is great. There was quite a bit of argument about whether he could succeed in the NFL, ultimately he was drafted in the first round. The unfortunate part of this for Tebow is he is a very flawed passer. It was pretty easy to hide this for several reasons in college but in the NFL it's been exposed badly. His throwing motion is horrible, his accuracy is comically bad at times. He played a couple of games last season and wasn't really all that terrible but wasn't particularly amazing either. Fast forward to this season. The Broncos are bad, Kyle Orton (the old QB) wasn't very successful. The fan base is in love with Tebow for all the normal backup QB reasons as well as because he was so amazing in college and because he's such a nice Christian kid. Denver finally names him the starter. He plays against Miami and is...flat out horrible. Not good at all. Missing very easy throws so badly that every guy sitting on his couch thinks he could do better. Then with 5 minutes left in the game and Denver down 15-0 Tebow starts looking half ok and leads two TD drives and ties the game, Denver wins in overtime. Next week is Detroit and Detroit beats the hell out of Denver all day. No comeback, Detroit won 45-10. Tebow is back to hilariously terrible. Then Denver figures out the regular offense isn't working well, so they mix in some aspects of things that worked well for Tebow in college. The read option and spreading the field in order to open up the run mainly. They do this against Oakland and Oakland seems to be pretty unprepared. Their running back runs for 163 yards and Tebow himself goes for over 100, Denver wins. Next week is Kansas City and Denver has another week to work more wrinkles into the offense. KC gets run over and dominated all day, Denver's defense plays very well. Tebow only completes two passes but I watched that game and it's not like they really needed to throw, the running game was all that they needed. Another Denver win. Next comes the Jets. After a first quarter drive where things worked well for the Broncos New York figures everything out and the option is toast. It doesn't work again all night. Unfortunately for the Jets Denver has discovered they can really play some D, they're giving the Jets fits all night on offense. It goes back and forth (through punts), just a completely defensive game. After a couple of field goals New York scores a TD and then Denver gets a pick 6. New York manages to get a field goal in the fourth quarter and it looks like the game will probably end 13-10. Then after about 3 full quarters of being completely useless the Denver offense comes to life. Tebow leads a 95 yard drive capped off by a rather dramatic 20 yard Tim Tebow run. Denver wins again. This is about where people really started taking him as anything other than a complete joke around here I'd guess. Ok this is way too much to be writing, short version for San Diego is Denver's D is awesome, Tebow's mediocre most of the game, Denver's running game is pretty good. San Diego's up in the fourth quarter, Tebow pulls another drive out of his rear end after looking pretty terrible all day to tie the game. In overtime San Diego gets close to field goal range and goes conservative (three straight runs up the middle) and ends up missing a long field goal. Then the Broncos march down the field and get a great run by McGahee to set up their own short field goal, they win again. So...in the end you have this quarterback who looks pretty bad both by the eye test and by most normal quarterback stats. Most people who follow football already have an opinion about him because he was so good in college and you couldn't help but hear about him if you followed the game. It turns out he has a knack for whatever reason for suddenly looking somewhat competent at the end of games. Playcalling? Looser Defenses? The Grace of God? For whatever reason from what I can tell he really does start playing better. At the same time this is happening Denver is figuring out they can really jam the ball down some people's throats in the running game and their defense starts playing lights out (against admittedly offensively challenged teams). So is Tebow good? Is he being bailed out by the rest of his team suddenly being really good themselves after being terrible the first part of the year? Are the college type offensive changes something that everyone will figure out in a week or two (this seems to have already happened sort of, but we'll see)? We don't really know, all we know at the moment is that for whatever reason Denver has been winning games and looking like a pretty good team since Tebow became the starter. My personal take is I hate him since he's a Bronco (Kansas City fan), that's all I really need to hope he and they are terrible forever. e: I need a better hobby don't I?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2011 11:25
|
|
|
Haha, I'll let one of the Green Bay guys write an essay on that one. The short version is he was really good for a really long time, rewriting all of the NFL passing records. Then every year since about 2007 (?--maybe earlier) became a "well he might retire" thing that ended with him coming back after a long drawn out media storm. We think he's finally actually retired now but with all the quarterbacks being hurt his name still gets brought up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2011 11:40
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:I just lost CBS from my Verizon FIOS cable service due to some sort of contract dispute between FIOS and the cable conglomerate. Stolen from one of the Gameday Threads: Check here: http://www.firstrow.tv/sport/american-football.html, http://www.vipbox.tv/sports/american-football.html, http://www.slipstreamtv.com/main.php?id=sports1, http://atdhenet.tv/, http://p2p4u.net/, http://www.veetle.com, http://www.ustream.tv/, and http://www.justin.tv/directory/sports If you have trouble finding a decent stream hop into the GDT and ask, there are usually several people streaming. NBC officially streamed their game last Saturday but I don't think CBS has done that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
CzarStark posted:At the end of the third quarter (with 10 seconds left) in the NYG-GB game, a GB running back ran out of bounds, but the clock kept going. I thought going out of bounds always stopped the clock? Was he being tackled at the time? If your forward progress was stopped by a tackle started in bounds and you fall backwards out of bounds the clock keeps running.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
As far as I know that's the only out of bounds situation where the clock doesn't stop at all. They do wind the clock after the ball is placed and ready for play except in the last 5 minutes of halves and games. e: Last 2 minutes of the first half and last 5 minutes of the game (and overtime presumably). http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/timing And that page also has the worst rule ever: quote:When, in the judgment of the Referee, the level of crowd noise prevents the offense from hearing its signals, he can institute a series of procedures which can result in a loss of team time outs or a five-yard penalty against the defensive team. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jan 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The Digest is about 5 years old and the crowd-noise rule is history. NFL just recently joined us in the future and uploaded its full rulebook as a free PDF so you can see how loving horrendous it is. I recommend the uniform regulations, including the bit where it literally specifies how much white players have to have at the top of their Oh really? I didn't know that. Even though I don't think it was ever actually used the fact that the crowd noise rule was a thing is still mindblowing, glad to hear it's gone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Does anyone know the reasoning behind the narrow NFL hash marks? I vaguely remember they changed the width of the goal posts at some time (or the NCAA did or something). Has the NFL always had the narrow marks?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Did an exhaustive post on the history of hashmarks and goalposts a while back: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3324645&userid=77743#post385990186 Ah thanks, that was what I was looking for. Interesting that for so long the NFL seemed to be trying to accommodate kickers, it seems every kicking related rule change since the last narrowing of the hash marks has been an attempt to make field goal kicking either harder or less inviting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
I have no real proof of this but I think scheme is generally used to describe a kind of broad type of gameplanning or strategy. 4-3 and 3-4 get called schemes, you'll hear about zone blocking schemes and blitz schemes. I suppose I'd define a 'scheme' as I usually hear it (from announcer/analyst types I mean) as a plan to account for whatever the other team might do and/or create mismatches that you can take advantage of. There's probably a technical way coaches think of scheming that I'm not aware of, I'm just thinking of how I hear regular idiots like most of us talk about things.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
I'd say the best troll would be to actually kick everyone's asses if they expect you to not know much. I'm sadly no help with good or bad fantasy advice, the Armchair QB subforum will have plenty of fantasy folks chatting once we get a little closer to the actual season. I just watched that Bart Scott interview again and I think my favorite thing about it is that he lands before doing the interview.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
I'm just happy someone read my half assed Tebow effort post! I really hope he blows up in New York so I can be on the side of thinking it's hilarious and appreciating the insanity rather than hating every second of it because he was doing it for the Broncos.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:So because of a friend who lives in Michigan, I've now found myself following MSU and the Lions. I just read about the 2008 Lions, which to me is extremely funny. Also there's a dude called the Megatron which also rules? Probably the easiest way to explain passing yards is "yards gained from scrimmage on passing plays." So yeah, distance through the air plus distance receiver goes. Where it gets confusing: Sacks are subtracted from a team's passing yards but not from a quarterback's passing yards in the NFL. Whereas in college football sacks are considered negative rushing yards both for the quarterback and team rushing stats (at least this is the way it used to be, someone correct me if the NCAA has changed this). e: poo poo now I'm not sure I'm right on the individual side in the NFL--someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
JetsGuy posted:Can a game end on a turnover on downs if said turnover is by the leading team? Obviously we have all seen games end on ToD when it's the team that was down. I guess I'm sort of curious about this too. My original reaction both when watching the game and afterwards was that they should have snapped the ball and wasted a couple of seconds, barring that snapped to the punter and have him waste a couple of seconds. I couldn't understand why you'd actually go through with kicking it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
As another more general reason most NFL teams look more or less close to other NFL teams. The college game has much greater variation in offensive systems, from a Mike Leach air raid to Chip Kelly at Oregon to the flexbone option offenses and lots of others. A lot of the innovation you see incorporated into NFL offenses comes from someone having success doing that at the college level. That's probably a lot lower on the list of reasons to watch than some stuff in Baraduk's post, but it can be pretty damned fun.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:I would I know a stretch play if I saw one? Uh, I don't know? But here's more info than you probably need to know about the Peyton Colts version of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 09:27
|
|
|
Rivals puns are how we refer to insulting low effort puns on player names or team names. Beast Mode isn't bad since it's a complimentary thing. If I referred to New Orleans as the Aints or Oklahoma as Chokelahoma those are things that aren't cool. Or Tim Tebow as Tim Teblow or something. e: Basically if you're trying to insult something by changing it's name you're probably not doing a funny thing. And this is the perfect example of the wrong thing to do: quote:so much for robert griffin the turd being the deadskins savior Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Sep 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
This is a recent change, but there's no 5 yard incidental facemask anymore. Any facemask is a 15 yard penalty now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
I've seen you say that before and I don't get it. Maybe you got a badly mixed batch or something? It's not the best tasting thing in the world for sure, but it's not particularly offensive in my opinion. e: Maybe they're marketing a new Onion and Garlic flavor overseas or something. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Oct 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
The Skins are in a weird place right now where it might be exactly the right time to start cheering for them. They've been bad for about the last 2 decades without much in the way of hope, but if you're going to choose a team to support based on one position QB is the correct position to use. If you're a history buff they were very good to excellent in the 80s and early 90s, but that doesn't do much now. The fans and coaches are more or less fine, people love to complain about coaches but Shanahan is ok (he's certainly not the worst out there). The name Redskins is also ridiculously racist, but that's more of an aside. The real problem is ownership, Dan Snyder is amazingly terrible for many reasons which we can expand on if you're curious. But in the end as far as enjoying the game this could be the perfect time to start following them. It's also possible RG3 gets hurt or doesn't pan out and the franchise continues to be awful for another decade or so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 11:09
|
|
|
Perdido posted:2) I've read up on guys like Butkus, Singletary and Sayers, plus the 1985 squad. I'm more curious about recent history (say: 90s onward) and anything notable/hilarious about the team. I'll let a Bears fan handle the current/more recent team, but I'll throw this in. You probably already know a little about him but since you didn't specifically name him my advice is to look up Walter Payton. Here's his NFL films top 100 thing. He was plenty fast and plenty shifty, but holy crap was he vicious too. There are plenty of guys who run over people that break down after a few years but Sweetness just didn't break down. This video isn't specifically about him, it's about the stiffarm in general. But it's still one of my favorite Payton bits, just because you watch everyone else and think 'wow' but then you get to Payton and think  vvv--Because of that I'll add in that no matter what his failings are Cutler is the best Bears quarterback since at least Jim McMahon pre injuries and probably since Sid Luckman (some guy in the '40s). For such a storied franchise they have been really consistently bad at that position. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
To add on to intentional grounding (or for instances where it wouldn't apply) yes it is sometimes dangerous to throw the ball away if you're about to be hit. If you know you can throw it away then great, but even if you can actually get a pass off it might not go where you're thinking it will if someone is hitting you at the same time. Every now and then in that situation you'll see a duck fly out of the QB's hand and go straight to a defender for an easy pick. Let us know if that link explains it well enough by the way, the rule can seem complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Those are time outs. Each team gets three per half. Different networks display them differently but if there are three things there it's likely that they're referring to time outs. e: Oh challenges are weird with time outs. If you win the challenge you retain your time out, if you challenge something that the refs determine was ruled correctly on the field you lose a time out. If you have no time outs you cannot challenge the play. Of course if there are less than two minutes in the half or game, it was a scoring play, or a play resulting in a turnover the play will automatically be reviewed. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Eh, it's not quite that bad, if it were we'd have seen Boise State in multiple title games. So strength of competition does play a part. The real problem is there are just too many teams and too few games to adequately figure out who is the best, so you end up having to guess in some fashion however you do it. Having said that:Blackula69 posted:Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:08 |
|
|
And the joke that is probably true in at least some cases is that list of guys up there very diligently have one of their assistants fill things out for them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 22:52
|
|