Just now, Utebird said:

I think alot of it had to do with the eagles starting their 7th different secondary of the year.

Not a lot of cohesion back there led to some breakdowns.

Hopefully against Dallas they can figure some things out.

Musical chairs back there. Need some stability back there for sure. I'm going to just continue to believe Bieniemy just has the Eagles # until I see otherwise.

3 minutes ago, judunno said:

They're low key the 2nd best team in the NFC right now IMO. 49ers are on a depth spiral and are running McCaffrey into the ground. They will be toast by December.

"Depth spiral" intended play on words?  Love it.  

42 minutes ago, just relax said:

The touchback on the end zone fumble rule dates back to Kenny Stabler deliberately fumbling forward into the end zone to win a game. The rule has good provenance.

Found it, see below. It's an archaic rule, carried over from an era when an incompletion in the end zone resulted in a touchback as well. Rules were changed to modernize the game in 1933, taking away the touchback for incompletions but not for fumbles.

 

As Tanier notes, you can trace the current controversy all the way back to 1906, which is when Walter Camp (the man known as "The Father of American Football”) put together a rulebook to bring some order to a game that was still in its relative infancy.

Camp defined a touchback as any play where the football ended up in (or out of) the offensive team’s end zone on plays where "the impetus which sent it to or across the line was given by an opponent.” That not only applied to kicks, interceptions, and (yes) fumbles but also incomplete passes, which hinged on the logic that the quarterback was responsible for throwing the ball into the end zone in the first place.

That rule remained in place for more than 25 years until the NFL (which was formed in 1920) updated its rules to remove incomplete passes from the list of plays eligible for a touchback in 1933. However, the league decided to keep the fumble on the books.

https://brobible.com/sports/article/nfl-fumble-end-zone-touchback-rule-origins/

1 hour ago, Casey @ Bat said:

That’s great I’m theory, problem is early season no teams are on the bye. 

So, you wait 4 weeks to start the TNF.   You'd really only be missing Weeks 2, 3 or 4, because the opener is already in a good spot with at least 7 days since the last preseason game, and no one plays in that game of consequence anyway.   So, you contract the preseason one game, and add an extra bye week for the week before the TNF plus the regular bye.   And on a couple TNF spots, they could even have double headers like they did with MNF a few times...  Plus they have 3 games already scheduled for Thanksgiving.  

Week 1
Weeks 5 - 17 (no Week 18 or 19 TNF games and 3x on Thanksgiving)...  (By adding the extra bye, the NFL schedule would be 19, not 18 weeks.  They could even squeeze an extra game in to the schedule with a second bye built-in and then you'd have Weeks 1, 5-17 with TNF, with Weeks 2, 3, 4, 18, 19 and 20 without TNF.). And that would mean more money and better games on TNF, which means more money for that game each week, because it would become a premium game rather than a throwaway in the schedule.

 

That makes more than enough spots for each team to play on TNF... and even have the flexibility to have the teams involved in the opener play ANOTHER TNF game to earn that 2nd bye in the schedule, if they wanted.

 

And remember once upon a time, they had teams that STARTED on a bye because they had an odd number of teams.  The schedule makers had the teams with bad records get the byes either super early or super late to have it impact the post-season as little as possible.   They can do it again and have the worst teams in the Weeks 5, 6, 16 and 17 slots.  Basically, the teams that own the top 8 picks in the draft get those spots.  

13 minutes ago, metal said:

Glad he's out of the division but that's a big pick up for Seattle. It's for a 2nd rounder in 2024 and a 5th rounder in 2025, so not a lot.

It's for only 9 games and playoffs. That's a lot for a rental.

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

I think alot of it had to do with the eagles starting their 7th different secondary of the year.

Not a lot of cohesion back there led to some breakdowns.

Hopefully against Dallas they can figure some things out.

I hope that was the issue as well.  WA did a good job of getting WRs isolated on Blankenship.  He was chasing guys all day.  My main concern was watching how often we bit on patterns, took poor angles, or were late reacting.

1 hour ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

The team is 7-1 and McLane basically gives them a B.  Which, I believe, would be higher then many of the posters in this Blog.

I think that's a fair grade.  They really have yet to put together a complete game from start to finish.  SNF against the Dolphins might be the closest.  And this was the 'easy' part of the schedule, so they get dinged a little bit despite the 7-1 record.  "A" would require that they had hit the toughest part of the schedule already and had some games where they really looked like the best team in the NFL from start to finish, especially against the weaker opponents.

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

It's for only 9 games and playoffs. That's a lot for a rental.

By a lot I meant I thought the Giants might get a better deal for him, but I didn't realize he's in the final year of his deal so that's not bad for that situation. Basically take what you can get since your season is effectively over.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

The day of. Before the draft. 

Good work by her.  I retract my previous statements.

Leaving SF for dead is as premature as everyone anointing them the greatest team in NFL history.  That's a good team that I still view as our biggest threat in the NFC.

1 hour ago, Casey @ Bat said:

I’ll disagree. Dean has ability, he’s played only a few games in his career. The other two weren’t on a team a week before the season for a reason. Not quite ready to give up on him yet. 

My fear with Dean is that he's always going to look a lot better with guys like Davis and Carter in front of him. 

And when you saw him make a few plays yesterday,  it was early in the game. 

Those guys went out. He disappeared and seemed to relinquish snaps to Cunningham and Morrow.

You also saw a physical RB run over our D a few times yesterday that doesn't really happen with Cunningham in. 

He looks like a playmaker kept cleanwind knifing in to the backfield.  But I'm afraid he will be too reliant on the health of the DL, meaning he will be too inconsistent as a long term starter here. 

I've been a Dean supporter. Pre-draft. Pre-season when everyone was down on him for no reason at all. 

Now,  I'm starting to have doubts.

Still deserves more games on his resume, but doubt creeping in. 

27 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Seahawks game just got tougher

 

 

44 minutes ago, Utebird said:

And yet he still managed to get abused all game.

If one just looks at the box score one would assume Dean played really well, I think he had something like 12 total tackles.

Yet how many of those were 5-10 yards down field?

I remember at least two where he had a guy dead to rights short of the first down but got piggy back over the marker 

 Dean had zero pass deflections, zero pressures, zero splash plays gave up a bunch of catches and was kicked on all day.

I remember one pass play where he shifted his direction about 3 times, he looked like he was glitching, I was like what the eff is he doing,

I remember another pass play where a receiver caught a pass in his zone where Dean was way out of place and the receiver went blazing up field and Dean just kind of gave up and started jogging, like at least keep running who knows maybe the guy gets caught up with another Defender and you can punch it out from behind but nope he was gassed and just watched.

I'm sure when the coaches sit down and look at the tape with the team they'll have a bunch of teaching points for Dean.

I want Dean to Succeed but I just don't see it with him, he's not super fast he's definitely not big and his lack of length really limits him in coverage .

Hopefully he can prove me wrong but so far I don't see it with him 

You really are committed to this, aren't you? Just for giggles, I clocked the first Commie drive to see what Dean did. In most cases he lined up as a single MLB (SMLB)or the right of two ILBs (RILB).

1. RILB. Deam covered RB 1-on-1 in right flat. Pass went elsewhere.

2. RILB. Dean tackled Dotson after two-yard gain.

3. RILB. Short yardage. Dean hit RB in the hole. gain of one yard.

4.SILB. Covered TE 1-on-1 on an arrow to the left. Pass went to other side.

5. SILB. RB tackled in backfield. Not needed.

6. SILB. Blitz. Forced throwaway. DPI called on Ricks.

7. RILB. Bubble screen stopped by Slay and Byard. Not needed.

8. SILB. Pitch right. Stopped by Brown. Not needed.

9. SILB. Bubble screen, stopped by Ricks.

In short. He was in on two tackles, both within two yards of the LOS. He blitzed and forced a throwaway. He covered receivers in the flat and the ball went elsewhere. He maintained gap discipline on all runs.

And we haven't gotten to his two tackles for losses later in the game.

I submit that your confirmation bias is working overtime.

12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Found it, see below. It's an archaic rule, carried over from an era when an incompletion in the end zone resulted in a touchback as well. Rules were changed to modernize the game in 1933, taking away the touchback for incompletions but not for fumbles.

 

As Tanier notes, you can trace the current controversy all the way back to 1906, which is when Walter Camp (the man known as "The Father of American Football”) put together a rulebook to bring some order to a game that was still in its relative infancy.

Camp defined a touchback as any play where the football ended up in (or out of) the offensive team’s end zone on plays where "the impetus which sent it to or across the line was given by an opponent.” That not only applied to kicks, interceptions, and (yes) fumbles but also incomplete passes, which hinged on the logic that the quarterback was responsible for throwing the ball into the end zone in the first place.

That rule remained in place for more than 25 years until the NFL (which was formed in 1920) updated its rules to remove incomplete passes from the list of plays eligible for a touchback in 1933. However, the league decided to keep the fumble on the books.

https://brobible.com/sports/article/nfl-fumble-end-zone-touchback-rule-origins/

The fumble being a touchback is the right rule... as demonstrated by the Holy Roller... there's an incentive for offensive players to try to extend the ball... and if its recovered in the end zone by their own team its a touchdown (that happened against the Eagles this year) as long as its not the last 2 minutes or 4th down.  A desperate team could absolutely abuse that, especially if they are bad at the red zone on a 3rd down...  So, having the backdrop be that the offensive player HAS to recover or else it becomes a touchback penalizes them for trying such a risky move near the goal line.   It upholds some competitive balance towards the defense.  EVERYTHING else seemingly in the modern game favors the offense to a ridiculous amount.

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Leaving SF for dead is as premature as everyone anointing them the greatest team in NFL history.  That's a good team that I still view as our biggest threat in the NFC.

Different threat coming across the country for the playoffs though.  Their chances for HFA is almost dead.  

13 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

I hope that was the issue as well.  WA did a good job of getting WRs isolated on Blankenship.  He was chasing guys all day.  My main concern was watching how often we bit on patterns, took poor angles, or were late reacting.

They did a good job of getting Dean mis matched as well, I remember at least 2 times where Dean was covering a WR which is a win for WAS.

If Desai doesn't fix it Ceedee Lamb is going to kill the eagles from The slot.

20 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Are you sure about that? I think it predates Stabler altogether.

When it comes to football lore, few moments in National Football League history are so significant that they earn a specific nickname. One such bizarre play in a game between the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders in 1978 was just that and today is simply referred to as the "Holy Roller.”  

Dave Casper

Ten seconds remained in the Week 2 match up at San Diego on September 10, 1978, when Raiders quarterback Ken Stabler dropped back to pass from the 14-yard-line. Chargers defensive end Fred Dean broke through the line and hit Stabler. Realizing there was nothing else he could do as the seconds ticked away, "The Snake” hurled the ball forward. As the ball rolled loose on the ground, Raiders running back Pete Banaszak swatted it toward the end zone. Tight end Dave Casper continued the ball’s forward motion with a kick at the five yard line and then fell on in it in the end zone for a touchdown as the clock ran out. 

"I fumbled it on purpose,” Stabler admitted honestly after the game. "Yes, I was trying to fumble.” 

Despite a protest from the Chargers sideline, referee Jerry Markbreit ruled it a legal play. Kicker Errol Mann added the extra point and the Raiders won the game, 21-20. 

Markbreit’s decision to uphold the play was absolutely correct by the rules in place at the time. However, that would soon change. During the off-season, the league added a provision to the rule book about fumbles after the two-minute warning that allows only the player who fumbled the ball to advance it. As such, the rule change implemented will forever prevent the "Holy Roller” from happening again. https://www.profootballhof.com/news/2017/12/news-the-holy-roller/

8 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Leaving SF for dead is as premature as everyone anointing them the greatest team in NFL history.  That's a good team that I still view as our biggest threat in the NFC.

Injuries are taking their toll. I'm a firm believer that they shot their load early :) The Purdy hype is officially over at least until Deebo returns. He needs those 3 yard passes that go for 50. I can't see McCaffrey making it with his current load. Kyle is going to kill him and Purdy before end of year. Jacking up Deebo too running him like he's a RB.

55 minutes ago, NOTW said:

👀

 

 

Howie likes to restructure for "cap flexibility" to build space to either use or roll over into the next year. 

 

So it could be something or nothing.  (Literally and figuratively the two options  )

16 minutes ago, just relax said:

You really are committed to this, aren't you? Just for giggles, I clocked the first Commie drive to see what Dean did. In most cases he lined up as a single MLB (SMLB)or the right of two ILBs (RILB).

1. RILB. Deam covered RB 1-on-1 in right flat. Pass went elsewhere.

2. RILB. Dean tackled Dotson after two-yard gain.

3. RILB. Short yardage. Dean hit RB in the hole. gain of one yard.

4.SILB. Covered TE 1-on-1 on an arrow to the left. Pass went to other side.

5. SILB. RB tackled in backfield. Not needed.

6. SILB. Blitz. Forced throwaway. DPI called on Ricks.

7. RILB. Bubble screen stopped by Slay and Byard. Not needed.

8. SILB. Pitch right. Stopped by Brown. Not needed.

9. SILB. Bubble screen, stopped by Ricks.

In short. He was in on two tackles, both within two yards of the LOS. He blitzed and forced a throwaway. He covered receivers in the flat and the ball went elsewhere. He maintained gap discipline on all runs.

And we haven't gotten to his two tackles for losses later in the game.

I submit that your confirmation bias is working overtime.

Now chart all the snaps he made mistakes or got beat in coverage or had a tackle past 4 yards of the LOS...

Giants got good value imo 

37 minutes ago, Texas Eagle said:

Hawks are gearing up. They’re right in the conversation for #1 seed, just not often discussed with that cohort.

Crazy to think last year when they traded Russ and went with Geno many thought they were going to be one of the worst teams and doing a full rebuild.  

4 minutes ago, just relax said:

When it comes to football lore, few moments in National Football League history are so significant that they earn a specific nickname. One such bizarre play in a game between the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders in 1978 was just that and today is simply referred to as the "Holy Roller.”  

Dave Casper

Ten seconds remained in the Week 2 match up at San Diego on September 10, 1978, when Raiders quarterback Ken Stabler dropped back to pass from the 14-yard-line. Chargers defensive end Fred Dean broke through the line and hit Stabler. Realizing there was nothing else he could do as the seconds ticked away, "The Snake” hurled the ball forward. As the ball rolled loose on the ground, Raiders running back Pete Banaszak swatted it toward the end zone. Tight end Dave Casper continued the ball’s forward motion with a kick at the five yard line and then fell on in it in the end zone for a touchdown as the clock ran out. 

"I fumbled it on purpose,” Stabler admitted honestly after the game. "Yes, I was trying to fumble.” 

Despite a protest from the Chargers sideline, referee Jerry Markbreit ruled it a legal play. Kicker Errol Mann added the extra point and the Raiders won the game, 21-20. 

Markbreit’s decision to uphold the play was absolutely correct by the rules in place at the time. However, that would soon change. During the off-season, the league added a provision to the rule book about fumbles after the two-minute warning that allows only the player who fumbled the ball to advance it. As such, the rule change implemented will forever prevent the "Holy Roller” from happening again. https://www.profootballhof.com/news/2017/12/news-the-holy-roller/

Yep…it’s a pretty well known play in NFL history 

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

The fumble being a touchback is the right rule... as demonstrated by the Holy Roller... there's an incentive for offensive players to try to extend the ball... and if its recovered in the end zone by their own team its a touchdown (that happened against the Eagles this year) as long as its not the last 2 minutes or 4th down.  A desperate team could absolutely abuse that, especially if they are bad at the red zone on a 3rd down...  So, having the backdrop be that the offensive player HAS to recover or else it becomes a touchback penalizes them for trying such a risky move near the goal line.   It upholds some competitive balance towards the defense.  EVERYTHING else seemingly in the modern game favors the offense to a ridiculous amount.

Oh believe me, I hate almost all the other rules that favor the offense. Just not this one. To me, it will never logically make sense to have such a huge swing in enforcement when attempting to penalize a player for extending the ball for a first down when it's 3rd and 10 from the 11 yard line, compared to when he does it a yard further. I think it's only a matter of time before the rule gets updated in some fashion. I think part of the reason it hasn't so far is because of how rare it is. I'd be okay if the offense retains possession but gets moved back to the 20 yd line, or defense wins possession, but at the spot of the fumble, or some other possible compromise. But as it stands now, it's far too rewarding for a defense that doesn't actually gain possession of the ball in the field of play.

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

Now chart all the snaps he made mistakes or got beat in coverage...

Why? You made allegations that he didn't cover anyone and any tackles were 5-10 yards downfield. A quick peek suggests otherwise. Feel free to list his errors. I'm not suggesting for a moment he didn't make any, just that he wasn't the disaster you're making him out to be.