52 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

I would be happy if he was cut today. I know it stretches our already thin d-line even thinner, but I don't care anymore. I really get angry watching Barnett out there. Any flag on defense, I just wait for the refs to announce it's on #96. 

Would probably be better cutting him and signing Hall who looked promising here and then got injured. 

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Would probably be better cutting him and signing Hall who looked promising here and then got injured. 

Shoot, bring back Hall and Ostman and cut Barnett and Kerrigan.

Whew.

3 minutes ago, RLC said:

Whew.

I mean, you could just, stop them from getting it? Naw, why blame your own team

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

 

 

 

So they demoralize the defense, tire them out and eat up the clock while still scoring touchdowns. Great plan rather then giving up the "big play"! Great plan analytical dept 👏

40 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Would you rather have had ceedee lamb or a pointless playoff loss?

With 2 wins?  Chase Young.  Lamb would still have been irrelevant.

4 minutes ago, greendestiny27 said:

So they demoralize the defense, tire them out and eat up the clock while still scoring touchdowns. Great plan rather then giving up the "big play"! Great plan analytical dept 👏

It's not necessarily a bad strategy. Unfortunately for us, San Fran's offense is built to do exactly that. Dallas and KC have great offenses that can score quickly or by long back breaking drives. 

We quickly forget Gym Short's defenses giving up huge play after huge play (and generally I liked most of what JS did). I'll wait and see with Gannon, this week will be interesting because I don't think Carolina can sustain long drives as well as the three teams we just played. Especially with no CM. Though I do like Hubbard a lot. 

Jalen Mills actually would have thrived I believe in Gannon's defense. If the idea is keep them to FGs instead of TDs, Mills biggest strength was his red zone coverage. We are certainly missing that right now. Nelson looked completely disinterested yesterday on first watch. 

Just now, TorontoEagle said:

It's not necessarily a bad strategy. Unfortunately for us, San Fran's offense is built to do exactly that. Dallas and KC have great offenses that score quickly or by long back breaking drives. 

We quickly forget Gym Short's defenses giving up huge play after huge play (and generally I liked most of what JS did). I'll wait and see with Gannon, this week will be interesting because I don't think Carolina can sustain long drives as well as the three teams we just played. Especially with no CM. Though I do like Hubbard a lot. 

Darnold may make Gannon blitz-curious.

 

4 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

It's not necessarily a bad strategy. Unfortunately for us, San Fran's offense is built to do exactly that. Dallas and KC have great offenses that can score quickly or by long back breaking drives. 

We quickly forget Gym Short's defenses giving up huge play after huge play (and generally I liked most of what JS did). I'll wait and see with Gannon, this week will be interesting because I don't think Carolina can sustain long drives as well as the three teams we just played. Especially with no CM. Though I do like Hubbard a lot. 

Jalen Mills actually would have thrived I believe in Gannon's defense. If the idea is keep them to FGs instead of TDs, Mills biggest strength was his red zone coverage. We are certainly missing that right now. Nelson looked completely disinterested yesterday on first watch. 

I wanted Gymie out of here. I just don't see how getting smashed and sliced all day long does any good. I am used to this team taking pride in defense through the years, we are so far away from that it's kinda sad, imo 

13 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

 

It would work with better LBs and safeties, not necessarily all pro types, just a bit more speed at safety (so they could line up a couple steps closer to the LOS) and a couple LBs who can shed blocks against the run, and a couple LBs who can actually cover people on passing downs.

So I was curious about Smith's TD that was called back for him stepping out of bounds. I've seen a few spots where it says it should have been a penalty on the defender, or the catch allowed to stand. I had to go to the NFL rule book:

Ineligible Receivers. All offensive players other than those identified in Article 5 above are ineligible to catch a legal or illegal forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage, including:

(d) An eligible receiver who has been out of bounds prior to or during a pass, even if he has reestablished himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands.

Exception: If an eligible receiver is forced out of bounds by a foul by a defender, including illegal contact, defensive holding, or defensive pass interference, he will become eligible to legally touch the pass (without prior touching by another eligible receiver or defender) as soon as he re-establishes himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands. See Article 8, Note 3.

So based on the rule book as I see it, we needed the refs to basically call a penalty on the defender for Smith to be "allowed" to re-establish himself. If there's no penalty on the defender, then no matter what, Smith can't be the first player to touch the ball. Am I interpreting that correctly? 

Facebook is down so I’m here for ppl fighting with RTK and Bacarty 

19 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

 

 

 

It worked week 1 and 2

23 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

probably the biggest understanding.

Losing 1 season, maybe 2 doesnt snowball. A shotty front office, bad drafting, and terrible coaching snowballs into losing seasons. 

Theres teams.,.. a lot of them... who have that 1 bad year, get a top 10 pick and bounce back right into the mice of things. 

 

 

That looks like it could be your Steelers this year 

3 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

So based on the rule book as I see it, we needed the refs to basically call a penalty on the defender for Smith to be "allowed" to re-establish himself. If there's no penalty on the defender, then no matter what, Smith can't be the first player to touch the ball. Am I interpreting that correctly? 

Yes

3 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Facebook is down so I’m here for ppl fighting with RTK and Bacarty 

Still works for me. The Eagles facebook group I'm in is getting rowdy though. I've notice that any criticism of Hurts is met with getting cursed out or called racist. Also saw a mod telling everyone to report people bashing Hurts so they can remove them

4 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

So I was curious about Smith's TD that was called back for him stepping out of bounds. I've seen a few spots where it says it should have been a penalty on the defender, or the catch allowed to stand. I had to go to the NFL rule book:

Ineligible Receivers. All offensive players other than those identified in Article 5 above are ineligible to catch a legal or illegal forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage, including:

(d) An eligible receiver who has been out of bounds prior to or during a pass, even if he has reestablished himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands.

Exception: If an eligible receiver is forced out of bounds by a foul by a defender, including illegal contact, defensive holding, or defensive pass interference, he will become eligible to legally touch the pass (without prior touching by another eligible receiver or defender) as soon as he re-establishes himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands. See Article 8, Note 3.

So based on the rule book as I see it, we needed the refs to basically call a penalty on the defender for Smith to be "allowed" to re-establish himself. If there's no penalty on the defender, then no matter what, Smith can't be the first player to touch the ball. Am I interpreting that correctly? 

Yes.  That's what I argued with you and others on Reagor's catch.

The rule in itself is counterintuitive if the WR goes out of bounds as a result of contact with the DB.  The DB should either be assessed a penalty, or the WR should be eligible again once he re-establishes himself in bounds.

5 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

So I was curious about Smith's TD that was called back for him stepping out of bounds. I've seen a few spots where it says it should have been a penalty on the defender, or the catch allowed to stand. I had to go to the NFL rule book:

Ineligible Receivers. All offensive players other than those identified in Article 5 above are ineligible to catch a legal or illegal forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage, including:

(d) An eligible receiver who has been out of bounds prior to or during a pass, even if he has reestablished himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands.

Exception: If an eligible receiver is forced out of bounds by a foul by a defender, including illegal contact, defensive holding, or defensive pass interference, he will become eligible to legally touch the pass (without prior touching by another eligible receiver or defender) as soon as he re-establishes himself inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands. See Article 8, Note 3.

So based on the rule book as I see it, we needed the refs to basically call a penalty on the defender for Smith to be "allowed" to re-establish himself. If there's no penalty on the defender, then no matter what, Smith can't be the first player to touch the ball. Am I interpreting that correctly? 

Yes. Smith was pushed out (IMO) and PI or illegal contact should have been called relative to when the ball was in the air.

What you saw on those Routes by Smith and Reagor is inexperience, not just positioning yourself to have a buffer, but knowing how to sell the defensive penalty. One way is to leverage off the CB so he extends his arms to push you out, the smart guys use their hips which is rarely called. Or by channeling your inner soccer player.

15 minutes ago, austinfan said:

It would work with better LBs and safeties, not necessarily all pro types, just a bit more speed at safety (so they could line up a couple steps closer to the LOS) and a couple LBs who can shed blocks against the run, and a couple LBs who can actually cover people on passing downs.

Sounds like a Howie problem.

7 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Yes.  That's what I argued with you and others on Reagor's catch.

The rule in itself is counterintuitive if the WR goes out of bounds as a result of contact with the DB.  The DB should either be assessed a penalty, or the WR should be eligible again once he re-establishes himself in bounds.

Well there was no penalty on the DB on Reagor, that was actually perfect coverage. 

Here's the replay of Smith's:

It looks to me like they are both hand fighting, and ultimately, a good no call from the official. Unfortunate for us. 

Not sure if that video works, but basically the play happens with 5:26 left in the 4th quarter. 

In fact, Smith has his hand on the back of the DB's jersey and is essentially yanking him down. 

I can't re-watch it but it looked like Smith got away with push offs about 2-3 times

29 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

 

 

 

You can play two high and not give up 7 yards per carry. 

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

You can play two high and not give up 7 yards per carry. 

Maybe you can. This team cannot.