Jump to content

Featured Replies

12 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The 16 that voted against the rule change are undoubtedly teams with bottom of the league QB's. 

I don’t know listening to Zimmer and Reid on rich Eisen today sounded like both really didn’t like it. Zimmer has cousins who I’d say is in the middle of the pack, not a bottom half, and Mahomes definitely not lol

  • Replies 27.2k
  • Views 1.9m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Meet my new Grandson Isaiah Lee greend

  • Green Dog
    Green Dog

    Hmm.  Feels like we've finally cut the cord.  Floating out in the ether. Anger at the faceless dismissal and marginalization of it's own fans by PE.com. But extreme gratitude for guys l

  • Rhinoddd50
    Rhinoddd50

    I mentioned this previously on this board, and in the past years ago on the other board.   I'm not sure Howie has ever come out and said it this plainly, but Howie is telling the truth here.   

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:
 
 
 

Cutoff date for OTA's and Minicamps are June 26th per CBA, and the NFLPA president said they won't be going past that date. Sounds like its likely nothing on site until TC

I would hope players can continue work offsite.  I hope Carson is able to host some of the WRs for workouts.  

9 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

OK....they do it but the ball goes back to where the play started. Problem solved.

35 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

The 16 that voted against the rule change are undoubtedly teams with bottom of the league QB's. 

Seems like that rule would create a competitive advantage for teams with mobile QBs, no? Not sure what the analytics say on this, but it seems like a mobile QB would have a higher likelihood of converting a 4th and 15 than a more stationary QB.

Also, seems like a nightmare scenario for officials regarding if/when to call PI.

4th and 15 is a not much of a challenge to defeat if your D co-ordinator does their job.  Schwartz picket D has proved there are ways around it, but it will require thought.  I can see why teams with a simple O won't like it as they don't have the nous to defeat it. 

And heaven forbid it makes the game more interesting and exciting to watch

5 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

4th and 15 is a not much of a challenge to defeat if your D co-ordinator does their job.  Schwartz picket D has proved there are ways around it, but it will require thought.  I can see why teams with a simple O won't like it as they don't have the nous to defeat it. 

And heaven forbid it makes the game more interesting and exciting to watch

What do you mean?

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

What do you mean?

Well, hmmm 🤔.  In this situations I think of Billy Davis and what he'd do to help the O convert...

2 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

Well, hmmm 🤔.  In this situations I think of Billy Davis and what he'd do to help the O convert...

Ahh, I was confused by the wording. I thought you were saying the picket fence defense wasn’t effective. 

Just now, ManuManu said:

Ahh, I was confused by the wording. I thought you were saying the picket fence defense wasn’t effective. 

Oh, definitely not.  It's a rather simple template than any D co-ordinator worth their salt would copy.  The fact other teams don't do it...

1 hour ago, NCiggles said:

I mean Grant did have Cold Harbor but of course Lee had Pickett's charge.  

He did, but Meade dithered. The attack was a day later than what Grant had originally ordered. Not that this is a valid excuse; it should have been called off regardless. He also had the Crater but that was butchered as well, and not by him. Politics was the culprit there. The troops attacking were changed at the last minute and the new units did not get proper instructions, probably because their commander - Ledlie - was drunk behind the lines. They were supposed to go around the hole blown in the Confederate lines but instead marched down into the hole where they were slaughtered. Fish in a barrel, more or less.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

 

I had thought about this, and this would be my solution.

Just like the kicking team can't advance an onsides kick beyond the point of recovery, make it so any reception beyond 15 yards is automatically dead at the point of the catch, and no further advancement. All running plays, and passes short of 15 yards would be advanced to the point needed to gain, but no further. This could also address the concerns some had about this being an untimed down.

1 hour ago, Iggles99 said:

I don’t know listening to Zimmer and Reid on rich Eisen today sounded like both really didn’t like it. Zimmer has cousins who I’d say is in the middle of the pack, not a bottom half, and Mahomes definitely not lol

No idea why Reid wouldn't like it. It's built for Mahommes to thrive in.

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

No idea why Reid wouldn't like it. It's built for Mahommes to thrive in.

Maybe he's a purist and realizes that the rule is just stupid. It's football for Chrissakes. Let's keep kicking in the game. If you're going to tinker with the onside kick, why not have some sort of long-distance attempt from your kicker? See if he can put it through the uprights from sixty yards. If he does, then you get possession at your own forty. If not, the other team gets it at the thirty.

4 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Maybe he's a purist and realizes that the rule is just stupid. It's football for Chrissakes. Let's keep kicking in the game. If you're going to tinker with the onside kick, why not have some sort of long-distance attempt from your kicker? See if he can put it through the uprights from sixty yards. If he does, then you get possession at your own forty. If not, the other team gets it at the thirty.

I'd rather just go back to the old onsides kick rules, to be honest. I know they changed for player safety but i can't ever recall an injury on an onsides kick attempt. 

 

This headline... 🤣

 

3 hours ago, justrelax said:

What with the talk of Sherman and now Grant, my view is that the two were the best combination of commanders in the war, better than Lee and Jackson, or Lee and Longstreet, or anyone else in the Confederacy. Once the two linked up they won every battle, every campaign. There was no rivalry between them and when Grant came East, Sherman was every bit as good in the West. Sherman famously said, "He stood by me when I was crazy and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."

I would agree. The Lee Jackson combo was equal or better tactically but on an operational and strategic comparison... it's not close. I also find it fascinating how the western theater trained Union officers how to win. No Confederate general would have conceived of the Vicksburg campaign not of the March to the Sea.  Also a totally different psychology grew out West than in the East where they were hamstrung by the fear of losing. Examples abound of generals doing poorly in the East (Howard, Hooker,Slocum...) who did far better in the West. 

37 minutes ago, justrelax said:

He did, but Meade dithered. The attack was a day later than what Grant had originally ordered. Not that this is a valid excuse; it should have been called off regardless. He also had the Crater but that was butchered as well, and not by him. Politics was the culprit there. The troops attacking were changed at the last minute and the new units did not get proper instructions, probably because their commander - Ledlie - was drunk behind the lines. They were supposed to go around the hole blown in the Confederate lines but instead marched down into the hole where they were slaughtered. Fish in a barrel, more or less.

Lee had Malvern Hill too. Re the Crater Meade's intervention seems to blew Burnside's confidence (and interest) in the assault. He basically defaulted to Meade that the attack should be led by a veteran (read worn out) division instead of Ferrero's green (but specifically trained) division for the assault. Burnside didn't even have the obstacles cleared from the Union trenches to allow the attack to be efficiently delivered. Bad leadership at it's finest.

2 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

OK....they do it but the ball goes back to where the play started. Problem solved.

Or, just to the 40 yard line... basically where the on-sides kick would get you.   BUT... the counter point is... IF a team kicked the ball and it rolled into the end zone and the kickoff team recovered it, it would be a TD.

55 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

He was their CB?   Goodness...   that's sad.

50 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

He was their CB?   Goodness...   that's sad.

We’re projected to start Maddox on the outside. We’re just as sad. 

Free access to Game Pass was extended through July. Just an FYI. 

From Carson:

 

That's my Quarterback👏

29 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

From Carson:

 

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.