43 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Look at you with the physics brain.   I am so proud.   

Just to correct this a little... its really about the time, not the delta-x.   It's the impulse-change in momentum relationship - F*delta-t = m*delta-v.  Longer time to change the velocity, the less force involved.  Force and displacement are related to energy, but ultimately, it's not about the energy, it's about momentum.  You are correct though, increasing the delta-x needed to stop the motion also increases the delta-t, which is really the goal.

 

 

I’m not saying this stuff isn’t look at in the league but I think a lot of it isn’t implemented or utilized appropriately.  To over simply though, Siriani explained that they take the 3rd day as a walk through because the league data shows that more soft tissue injuries happen on day 3 of camp than any other day.  That’s great use of the data.  The leagues answer to all of the concussion data is:

8 hours ago, eagle45 said:

Absolutely, mathematically it's time.  Conceptually, I always found it easier to think of the distance over which the acceleration changes...but as you said, it's really time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't X have a place in there too?  X=Vo*t + (1/2)*at^2?     With a much larger X and negative acceleration, the magnitude of acceleration would be much less.   

It would, but momentum is the driving concept here.  Displacement, velocity and acceleration are all related to each other and to time as you've shown, but ultimately... it is the impulse-momentum relationship that determines the force.  And it is the force that actually matters where concussions are concerned.

The distance increasing is what allows for the time to increase, which in turn allows the force to decrease.

8 hours ago, DBW said:

That was a negotiation. Less intense practices and fewer preseason games in exchange for 17-18 games. 

Yes, a negotiation where one side (NFLPA) was pushing for less intense practices, etc. And the other side was pushing for more revenue generation, aka more games.

On 8/5/2022 at 1:55 PM, Infam said:

You guys better get ready to cheer for Hurts for many years to come.. 😁

If his play warrants cheering, I'm ready. I don't usually get too excited about running backs though.

 

Happy Belated B-Day Jalen. Great crowd reaction.  Plenty of us support you and hope for your success and not for you to fail.   5 More Weeks To Go.    

2 hours ago, KINGnabb said:

 

Happy Belated B-Day Jalen. Great crowd reaction.  Plenty of us support you and hope for your success and not for you to fail.   5 More Weeks To Go.    

I wonder if he asked for field vision and pocket discipline for his birthday? 

2 hours ago, KINGnabb said:

 

Happy Belated B-Day Jalen. Great crowd reaction.  Plenty of us support you and hope for your success and not for you to fail.   5 More Weeks To Go.    

No one hopes he fails

14 minutes ago, downundermike said:

No one hopes he fails

Definitely not. If it wasn't for his fanbase being so obsessive and forcing a counter argument to bring the fanbase back down to earth, there would probably be far less noise. The defense he is given compared to his production is the uproar most of the time. I don't dislike the kid and hope he does well, but I really do dislike Hurts fans. And there is a difference from eagles fans and hurts fans. 

3 hours ago, KINGnabb said:

 

Happy Belated B-Day Jalen. Great crowd reaction.  Plenty of us support you and hope for your success and not for you to fail.   5 More Weeks To Go.    

AJ Brown is looking jacked AF

Jalen Hurts is doing a LOT of running- STILL. A LOT.

46 minutes ago, downundermike said:

No one hopes he fails

I believe you are genuine and sincere but you are being naive. Hurts could be a great QB and still never win a Super Bowl - so unless he suddenly develops into a HOF QB he will never be good enough to some of his critics. Which means he has to go no matter what. Many Hurts critics would rather be right than to have the Eagles win - because winning might lead to the Eagles keeping Hurts and that is just unacceptable to them.

 

Many Hurts critics are actively hoping he fails miserably - so that they can tout how smart they are and the Eagles will be forced to move on.

5 minutes ago, Nivraga said:

I believe you are genuine and sincere but you are being naive. Hurts could be a great QB and still never win a Super Bowl - so unless he suddenly develops into a HOF QB he will never be good enough to some of his critics. Which means he has to go no matter what. Many Hurts critics would rather be right than to have the Eagles win - because winning might lead to the Eagles keeping Hurts and that is just unacceptable to them.

 

Many Hurts critics are actively hoping he fails miserably - so that they can tout how smart they are and the Eagles will be forced to move on.

You're being naive if you believe if he became a great QB, there would be so many critics. It's the fact he is below adequate as a QB that he catches the heat, not because of anything personal 

Just now, Shalodeep said:

You're being naive if you believe if he became a great QB, there would be so many critics. It's the fact he is below adequate as a QB that he catches the heat, not because of anything personal 

WTF are you talking about - you need to re-read my post because your comprehension is failing you.

Just now, Nivraga said:

WTF are you talking about - you need to re-read my post because your comprehension is failing you.

You are saying unless he becomes a hof QB type, he will never be good enough to his critics. That's bs. If he was good, he wouldnt catch the criticism. He isn't. . He is below average at everything a QB needs to be other than running which should be a last resort. I comprehended what was said just fine. 

1 hour ago, Shalodeep said:

You are saying unless he becomes a hof QB type, he will never be good enough to his critics. That's bs. If he was good, he wouldnt catch the criticism.

Absolutely! Because the critics are always fair, unbiased and have no interests of their own. 

Especially at QB, nobody has ever caught criticism undeserved.

On 8/5/2022 at 2:18 PM, Iggles_Phan said:

Ok.  Name an example of a QB who makes a deep playoff run without the stats and was 'the guy' the following year with that team.   Trent Dilfer won the SB with the Ravens, didn't have the stats and was gone the next season.  Jimmy G, as has already been pointed out, is a guy that SF has been trying to replace for years.  Can you name one?

 

What you are suggesting is the OPPOSITE of the odds you are portraying.  In the NFL, the QB has to both win in the playoffs AND put up stats while doing so... and frankly, many times, they will even take the stats over the wins when push comes to shove and contract time rolls around... see also, Prescott, Dak, Murray, Kyler, Cousins, Kirk, etc.  Stats are what gets QBs paid in the NFL.   Very very very few QBs get the chance to improve on their stats even after a playoff run, because the team usually sees the QB without the stats as the piece that held them back from going even further, and they do whatever they can to fix the QB position while the other pieces are in place around that position.  (or have you not been watching what's happened recently in the NFL with the QB movement... Brady, Stafford, Wilson, Watson, etc.?)

Peyton Manning.  He even won a SB twice with mediocre stats. 

Anyway, Hurts wouldn't have to put up huge stats in the playoffs to stay, he'd just have to actually win games in order to remain. As long as he isn't turning the ball over a lot, he could effectively get by with his legs in the postseason, as long as it lead to success.

3 minutes ago, MF POON said:

Peyton Manning.  He even won a SB twice with mediocre stats. 

Anyway, Hurts wouldn't have to put up huge stats in the playoffs to stay, he'd just have to actually win games in order to remain. As long as he isn't turning the ball over a lot, he could effectively get by with his legs in the postseason, as long as it lead to success.

  You are telling me that the third most prolific passer in NFL history (#1 when he retired) didn't have the stats?  Yes, in his final year of his Hall of Fame career, in which the Broncos won the Super Bowl, he was cooked... and he walked off into the sunset with a second Lombardi.  And, since he didn't return after that Super Bowl, I'd argue he wasn't given another shot at the QB position.  As for earlier years in his career... I just have no idea what you are talking about.  He went over 4k passing yards in Year 2 of his career, and every year of his career (except 2005), until that final year.  And in 2005, which they won the Super Bowl, he still had the highest Passer rating in the league.  So, while his total stats were down a little (an anomaly for his career, he led the league in yards per attempt, TDs and passer rating the year before) and was still at the top of the league in terms of passer rating.  

 

As for the last bolded piece... how many QBs get by in the postseason with their legs (successfully)?  Very, very few.

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

  You are telling me that the third most prolific passer in NFL history (#1 when he retired) didn't have the stats?  Yes, in his final year of his Hall of Fame career, in which the Broncos won the Super Bowl, he was cooked... and he walked off into the sunset with a second Lombardi.  And, since he didn't return after that Super Bowl, I'd argue he wasn't given another shot at the QB position.  As for earlier years in his career... I just have no idea what you are talking about.  He went over 4k passing yards in Year 2 of his career, and every year of his career (except 2005), until that final year.  And in 2005, which they won the Super Bowl, he still had the highest Passer rating in the league.  So, while his total stats were down a little (an anomaly for his career, he led the league in yards per attempt, TDs and passer rating the year before) and was still at the top of the league in terms of passer rating.  

 

As for the last bolded piece... how many QBs get by in the postseason with their legs (successfully)?  Very, very few.

You said, name a player that can be carried during the playoffs AND still be "that guy" or whatever next season. He also had bad stats the one year he won in Indy, look it up.

 

1 minute ago, MF POON said:

You said, name a player that can be carried during the playoffs AND still be "that guy" or whatever next season. He also had bad stats the one year he won in Indy, look it up.

 

Comparing Hurts lack of everything that is QB to Manning.....seems legit

5 minutes ago, MF POON said:

You said, name a player that can be carried during the playoffs AND still be "that guy" or whatever next season. He also had bad stats the one year he won in Indy, look it up.

I did.  

1 - Manning wasn't 'that guy' the year after the run in Denver, he retired.  Throw that one out of consideration.

2 - In 2005, he was 7th in the NFL in passing yards, 6th in completions, #1 in passer rating, 2nd in passing TDs, 2nd in passing first downs, 1st in 1st down percentage and only 10 INTs. (20 QBs were ahead of him in INTs.)

 

Tell me again how he had 'bad stats' in 2005?   

 

I'll add that the implication of my comment was also referring to a guy who NEVER had the stats, not just a guy who had a bad year, but even so... Manning is the guy you are going to champion because of his 2005?  

4 minutes ago, MF POON said:

You said, name a player that can be carried during the playoffs AND still be "that guy" or whatever next season. He also had bad stats the one year he won in Indy, look it up.

 

Dude

He led the league in TD passes, QB rating and QBR the year the Colts won the Super Bowl.  

He was 3rd in completion percentage, 2nd in passing yards, 4th in yards per attempt.

You are so wrong it is laughable.

Just now, Shalodeep said:

Comparing Hurts lack of everything that is QB to Manning.....seems legit

Therein lies the issue with the hypothetical question to begin with. You wouldn't just disregard everything the QB does in the regular season, as that matters too.  IF Hurts put up really good numbers this year during the reg season, and went deep into the playoffs but had avg stats, he'd stay. 

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I did.  

1 - Manning wasn't 'that guy' the year after the run in Denver, he retired.  Throw that one out of consideration.

2 - In 2005, he was 7th in the NFL in passing yards, 6th in completions, #1 in passer rating, 2nd in passing TDs, 2nd in passing first downs, 1st in 1st down percentage and only 10 INTs. (20 QBs were ahead of him in INTs.)

 

Tell me again how he had 'bad stats' in 2005?   

 

I'll add that the implication of my comment was also referring to a guy who NEVER had the stats, not just a guy who had a bad year, but even so... Manning is the guy you are going to champion because of his 2005?  

But he WAS "that guy" after the Indy SB run. and again, you're making my earlier point about how you don't just disregard regular season stats.

5 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Dude

He led the league in TD passes, QB rating and QBR the year the Colts won the Super Bowl.  

He was 3rd in completion percentage, 2nd in passing yards, 4th in yards per attempt.

You are so wrong it is laughable.

I'm not wrong. Saying that Hurts "has to" go deep in the playoffs, and put up big numbers during that run in order to stay is wrong. 

If he has a great regular season, he'll more than likely be staying no matter what he does in the playoffs.

5 minutes ago, MF POON said:

Therein lies the issue with the hypothetical question to begin with. You wouldn't just disregard everything the QB does in the regular season, as that matters too.  IF Hurts put up really good numbers this year during the reg season, and went deep into the playoffs but had avg stats, he'd stay. 

But he WAS "that guy" after the Indy SB run. and again, you're making my earlier point about how you don't just disregard regular season stats.

I haven't disregarded everything the QB does in the regular season.  That was the whole point.  🤦‍♂️. Hurts wasn't good enough in the regular season this past year.  They got in to the playoffs because the NFL expanded the tournament to make more money and they proved that they didn't belong, in large degree because the QB was out of his depth.  

If Hurts puts up really good numbers this year... and has a deep playoffs run, then he wouldn't qualify as one of the players I referred to.  I specifically mentioned Trent Dilfer, who was god-awful that year with the Ravens.  They set an NFL record for most consecutive game without an offensive TD being scored, and despite that, still won the Super Bowl.  And he was dismissed. 

1 minute ago, MF POON said:

I'm not wrong. Saying that Hurts "has to" go deep in the playoffs, and put up big numbers during that run in order to stay is wrong. 

If he has a great regular season, he'll more than likely be staying no matter what he does in the playoffs.

You are misreading what was said.  

6 minutes ago, MF POON said:

Therein lies the issue with the hypothetical question to begin with. You wouldn't just disregard everything the QB does in the regular season, as that matters too.  IF Hurts put up really good numbers this year during the reg season, and went deep into the playoffs but had avg stats, he'd stay. 

He'd get his 4th year if that played out. Probably not extended, but given the same opportunity he is getting last year and this