Wouldn't be surprised if Bengals, Vikings, Jags were on board with banning it too. All their coaches are in the same McVay, LaFleur, Morris circle. 

Weren't there 3 teams who were being investigated for early contact during the tampering period?  Whatever happened with that?

 

 

28 minutes ago, paco said:

He's like a weird blend of Dak and Kirk Cousins

That's the meanest thing I've ever seen posted on this board

3 hours ago, brkmsn said:

"Yeah, really wasn't a huge part of drafting the proposal like that, but very much in support of it," Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst told reporters, via USA Today. "I think the medical professionals of the league had high concerns about putting players in a position to (suffer) catastrophic injuries. I think this is something that needs to be discussed and we need to be proactive about it rather than reactive." 

 

They are "reactive" in the fact that they just don't like the play and want it banned without a good reason. Pretending there might be a reason is, as you say, nonsense. Honestly, as many times as the play has been run over the last 3 years by teams in the NFL, it may very well be the safest play in football statistically. 

This is not about player safety at all. It's about a play that is designed so well that when executed properly is guaranteed to pick up 1 yard and that is changing how critical decision making is done in games --- and conservative minded coaches don't like that. 

When you get down to the wording of the proposal, the only element they are trying to ban is pushing the player that directly receives the snap immediately at the snap. So they are insinuating through their wording that the only player they are trying to keep safe is the "QB" on the play. I'd like to see them explain where this "catastrophic injury" risk is introduced because of this element. 

The only difference between the Brotherly Shove and any short yardage play might be the flanking players being a little more upright.  Sills is making excuses.  Note that as analytics groups get bigger, more teams are going for it on fourth down.  IMHO, that makes the game a bit more exciting. 

I wonder if they could even pass a ban on the tush push after the draft.

A counter-argument could be made that a team pursued players with traits that were consistent with the rules at the time of the draft.

 

 

A few interesting changes.  You can designate 2 for return at 53 cutdown and if you make postseason the 8 returns becomes 10

I remember people were freaking because they thought Eagles wasted slots on Bradberry and maybe Albert O.  Never became an issue

 

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

 

I didn’t think it would pass but i do think there are more teams in favor of it then there has been in the past when brought up 

1 hour ago, pgcd3 said:

Touchback moved to the 35.  Hope Avery Williams is good.

Williams is the leader for most impressive player during mini camps.

 

Rodgers totally doesn't love the spot light of dragging out another offseason. 

7 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Rodgers totally doesn't love the spot light of dragging out another offseason. 

He's just a guy who takes his time making decisions! LEAVE AARON ALONE!

 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Rodgers totally doesn't love the spot light of dragging out another offseason. 

 

Just now, DEagle7 said:

He's just a guy who takes his time making decisions! LEAVE AARON ALONE!

Mind boggling that any team would show even a little bit of interest in that idiot at this point

15 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I didn’t think it would pass but i do think there are more teams in favor of it then there has been in the past when brought up 

There's likely just more teams that feel there's no justified reason to ban it

Sounds like they might as well ban the QB sneak altogether then.

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Rodgers totally doesn't love the spot light of dragging out another offseason. 

He hates the spot light.  Thus the darkness retreats.  And then talking about the darkenss retreats.

9 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

There's likely just more teams that feel there's no justified reason to ban it

There's a lot of political components to it too. There could be teams that don't think it's justified but also not offer the unwavering support for it at the same time. 

15 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

 

I'm old and therefore no longer hip..... but isn't a peach an emoji for something else?

As someone mentioned before if it's player safety then they should get rid of Thursday night football, all the crappy fields, what about having camera guys away from the end zone.  Seems like guys are always either running into them or having to hurdle them.  Lets ban the play where no one is getting hit at full speed instead. 

1 minute ago, paco said:

I'm old and therefore no longer hip..... but isn't a peach an emoji for something else?

6 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

As someone mentioned before if it's player safety then they should get rid of Thursday night football, all the crappy fields, what about having camera guys away from the end zone.  Seems like guys are always either running into them or having to hurdle them.  Lets ban the play where no one is getting hit at full speed instead. 

The NFL doesn't give a rat's ass about player safety  

11 hours ago, mattwill said:

No it isn’t going in circles at all.  No one has disputed that "people have reasonably stated” argument.  It is a very valid backward-looking argument … assessing past decisions.  What it is not is a forward-looking value assessment of what Davis’ "impact” ( @ToastJenkins word) was on 2024 regular season and post season games. 

As I noted above the Chiefs ran 38 pass plays and ran the ball 11times, 4 of which were Mahomes scrambles on broken pass plays.  That is a 6:1 ratio.  Clearly the run defense was cooking with gas that game.

.  Not at all.   This comment makes me wonder if you watched the game, or just can't remember what actually happened?

1 - The Chiefs were a bad running team all year.  They ran the ball the 9th least of any team in the league.  The other 8 were terrible teams that were constantly behind.  The Chiefs weren't that team, but have a different issue, which we'll get to with item 2.

2 - ANDY REID.   When things don't go to plan offensively, Andy abandons the running game as a matter of habit.   He always has and it hasn't changed.  He also abandons the run when things are going well, because at his heart, he loves to pass the ball.  Its a serious blind spot he has. 

 

The Eagles' D was cooking with gas against the pass too... racking up sacks and pressures on Mahomes constantly.  But, the Chiefs abandoned the run from the get go. 
(Score 0-0). 1st drive - 4 passes.  0 runs. 
(Score 7-0). 2nd drive - 2 passes.  1 run. 
(Score 7-0). 3rd drive - 3 passes. 0 runs.
(Score 10-0). 4th drive - 3 passes (2 sacks and 1 Int for TD.)  0 runs. 
(Score 17-0). 5th drive - 1 pass.  2 runs. 
(Score 17-0). 6th drive - 1 pass (INT).  0 runs
(Score 24-0). 7th drive - 4 passes.  0 runs

Exactly when did the Eagles' run D come into play to be a factor in the game?   The Chiefs ran the ball 3 times in the first half.  THREE.  That's a common Andy Reid formula, and one of the things that drove us nuts when he was here, especially in the playoffs.

7 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The things I learn in the blog.