|
Rick posted:What's a good way to get more informed about the outlooks of college teams before the season starts? The old man at Walgreens tonight said he thinks that Arizona is going to make the Rose Bowl this year, and then asked me what I thought, and I really didn't want to say "well, the guys on the Something Awful forums think they're going to be pretty mediocre this year." Pre-Snap Read does breakdowns of all the teams that are pretty decent. They did Arizona a while ago. The Phil Steele college football preview thing is pretty popular as well. These should do a good job of breaking down areas of concern and assumed strength for a team. Looking at lists/rankings is ultimately what you want to know, but be aware that, no matter how much care was taken in making them, they are entirely bullshit right now.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
What's a good way to learn to identify good quarterbacking? I mean footwork, mechanics, all that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
Take a look at Ben Roethlisberger  No, it's a collection of things. Footwork and mechanics, honestly just Googling it and trying to watch for things in real games. There are a lot of guides out there for young quarterbacks and coaches that teach good fundamentals. It's amazing how some guys (Cam Newton) can make it to the NFL level with sub-par fundamentals, they just make it because they're freakish athletes. Oh poo poo, here's an awesome thing I found just googling, it's Tom Brady's mechanics broken down by his QB coach: http://www.boston.com/sports/special/patriots/playoffs2006/brady_throw/ Look at how he ends up, and his body positioning. That's pure quarterbacking, you know it when you see it. And here's a breakdown (by some rear end in a top hat on youtube, but hey) about Cam Newton's throwing motion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRlU2kKNwmA You can see the difference, even without the breakdown. Just look at the way Newton's feet set and his weight transfer in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smg9bVtgv5I Look at the throw at 1:25. That's some lovely footwork right there. For reference, just check out any Tom Brady clip. e: oof, look at 2:00. That's brutal That's not even starting on reading a defense and audibles, which separates the greatest quarterbacks from the rest. And some quarterbacks can be deficient in some ways and make up for it in others - Mike Vick still has problems reading a defense, and Ben Roethlisberger holds onto the ball way too long. But Vick makes up for it by being the best broken-play QB ever, and Roethlisberger is absolutely retarded good at throwing under pressure e: Oh, and another thing. You'll notice that every Tom Brady touchdown looks the same - he almost always throws with a similar motion. It's like a boxer's punch: once you do it right, it's hard to do it wrong. With worse quarterbacks, you'll see them throwing all sorts of different ways. Brady looks almost the same every time (at least in his footwork and fundamentals). Blackula69 fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
tk posted:Pre-Snap Read does breakdowns of all the teams that are pretty decent. They did Arizona a while ago. Thanks, I really liked that, especially Pre-Snap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 10:39
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:What's a good way to learn to identify good quarterbacking? I mean footwork, mechanics, all that stuff. Some stuff about mechanics was just posted today by Smart Football: http://smartfootball.com/quarterbacking/can-a-quarterbacks-throwing-motion-be-improved
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
All of this Pryor talk has reminded me that I do not understand the supplemental draft at all. What is it? How does it work? It seems like teams give up next year's draft picks to get exclusivity on guys who weren't in this year's draft, is that about right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:All of this Pryor talk has reminded me that I do not understand the supplemental draft at all. What is it? How does it work? It seems like teams give up next year's draft picks to get exclusivity on guys who weren't in this year's draft, is that about right? You've got the idea. You submit a bid for what round you want to take a player at. If you're the highest, you get the player, and give up your pick in that round in the next draft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:All of this Pryor talk has reminded me that I do not understand the supplemental draft at all. What is it? How does it work? It seems like teams give up next year's draft picks to get exclusivity on guys who weren't in this year's draft, is that about right? Yes. It's for players who missed the deadline for declaring for the real draft due to circumstances out of their control.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
I was watching the Jets/Bengals game on the NFL channel, and a couple times during commercial breaks they had this little thing that was like the top five touchdown catches of the previous year. I think it was the number two catch that had the 49ers and some team with some wacky throwback uniform that I can't identify. The jersey was dark and had the player's number on the front in a big circle, and their helmets were a dark brown. I don't watch the 49ers, so I wouldn't have seen that game. This throwback seems to give the impression of a pretty old uniform. What really sucks is they cut off the audio of the clip right before the announcer was about to say the name of the other team. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
I think that's Green Bay, were they these? http://lombardiave.com/files/2010/11/throwback1.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I think that's Green Bay, were they these? http://lombardiave.com/files/2010/11/throwback1.jpg Yes, those are what I saw. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
Those jerseys completely rule. The brown helmets represented old-rear end leather ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 14:15
|
|
|
What's the quality like on the NFL's Game Rewind service? I have an HDMI-out port on my video card that outputs to my HDTV at 1080p, so I'd like to avoid having to actually shell out $60/month for cable/spend nearly $400 for a DirectTV Sunday ticket subscription if I can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
MacGyvers_Mullet posted:What's the quality like on the NFL's Game Rewind service? I have an HDMI-out port on my video card that outputs to my HDTV at 1080p, so I'd like to avoid having to actually shell out $60/month for cable/spend nearly $400 for a DirectTV Sunday ticket subscription if I can. Beats non-HD by a good bit, but there is noticeable motion blur, though still images are quite crisp, especially as you go above 20 inches. It looks fine, but if you're picky, you'll probably want to aim higher. Looks fine at standard size, like this maxed out on my monitor, and a fair bit more noticeable when I stream to my 50 inch screen: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Beats non-HD by a good bit, but there is noticeable motion blur, though still images are quite crisp, especially as you go above 20 inches. It looks fine, but if you're picky, you'll probably want to aim higher. Thanks, it beats the hell out of the over the air signals I can get (I can tell players apart), so I picked it up. e: quote != edit, changing content of my two posts. Sumac fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Aug 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
Apparently this comes with the 2009 and 2010 seasons too, nice plus. Also, it looks like I get better quality by manually setting the video to the max bitrate instead of checking the "best available" box. Easily look better at that setting than when I watched last season in HD on Comcast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
Yup yup. I just get that blur when serious action occurs and wanted to make sure I didn't oversell it to you. And yeah, being able to watch the last two years is quite nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
Speaking of Game Rewind, does anyone have any idea what the NFL Game Pass is like. How's the quality and does it stream smoothly? Although, I'm not sure even smooth and crisp HD playback is going to justify 200 euros per season.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
I've bought the HD Game Pass for the last 3 years in a row, it's worth every penny if you're interested in more than just your team's games. Only lovely thing about being in the UK is that they black out the games that Sky show but if you're in Europe you've got every game live and RedZone which is fantastic. To the guy who was wondering if the iPad/phone apps would be ready in time - they normally upgrade the player during preseason each year and have had a couple of issues with capacity in Week 1 and 2 but from 3 and on it's plain sailing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 13:05
|
|
|
That was me, thanks for the update. Really liking GamePass... by any chance do you know if the Sky games are blacked out based on country of signup/card, or IP? Because if getting a Dutch proxy will open up those Sunday games, im tempted to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 14:25
|
|
|
When I was in Portugal last October I got full coverage and RedZone on my account without changing anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
Sweet, a proxy hunting I will go then  Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
Here's a question specific to crm or HooverFan if he's around or fiz if he actually lived in Charlotte: Is it weird to have a "Carolina" team? I can't imagine having some kind of Ohio-Indiana or Ohio-West Virginia team or something. Actually I can't even imagine having just an Ohio team, which I think is what the Columbus Blue Jackets are going for, but anyway...is it just kind of a different way of thinking, that North Carolina and South Carolina people just don't care much? I guess the basic question I'm asking is, aren't there separate identities for the two states? Is there a gap, and if so, why do several sports teams try to bridge the gap?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
DO YALL WANT A HAM posted:Here's a question specific to crm or HooverFan if he's around or fiz if he actually lived in Charlotte: Is it weird to have a "Carolina" team? I can't imagine having some kind of Ohio-Indiana or Ohio-West Virginia team or something. Actually I can't even imagine having just an Ohio team, which I think is what the Columbus Blue Jackets are going for, but anyway...is it just kind of a different way of thinking, that North Carolina and South Carolina people just don't care much? I live in NC and have for most of my life so I'll try to answer your question even though the Panthers aren't my primary team. Maybe someone else can do it better. The two states definitely have separate identities, both culturally and in terms of sports fandom. NC is larger, much more liberal, and generally more "urban" than SC. We're a tech and banking capital. We're proud of our strong universities and we have lots of clean, livable cities. SC is more rural and conservative. Outside of Charleston/Columbia I don't really know much about SC except that they don't like black people too much there, it's really hot, there are giant loving cockroaches and you have to buy alcohol in little airplane bottles, even at bars. There is somewhat of a rivalry between natives of the two states, with NCers looking down on SC residents as backwater rednecks and SCers having the perception that NC is full of a bunch of carpetbagging milquetoast liberal Yankees. Neither side is entirely incorrect. As far as sports go, most people in NC are far more rabid about college basketball (Duke, UNC, NCSU even though they're horrible right now), whereas SC natives love college football (Clemson, USC, etc.) Pro sports come a distant second, but people do love the Panthers, and the Canes are HUGE in Raleigh. Despite this, it doesn't feel weird for me at all to have a combined Carolina team. When I think of the Panthers, I think of them as a North Carolina team strictly, and that people from SC enjoy the team as well due to proximity. It's kind of like how people call UNC "Carolina", or how we have colleges like East Carolina and Western Carolina even though they recruit primarily from NC only. When people say "Carolina" they're usually referring to NC by default. I don't think it really crosses people's minds much here that the team also represents SC. I guess sports teams just go with "Carolina" instead of "North Carolina" because it's easier to say, and helps get them a few fans in SC as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
DO YALL WANT A HAM posted:Here's a question specific to crm or HooverFan if he's around or fiz if he actually lived in Charlotte: Is it weird to have a "Carolina" team? I can't imagine having some kind of Ohio-Indiana or Ohio-West Virginia team or something. Actually I can't even imagine having just an Ohio team, which I think is what the Columbus Blue Jackets are going for, but anyway...is it just kind of a different way of thinking, that North Carolina and South Carolina people just don't care much? I live in Columbia. I have liked the Panthers forever, since I lived in Charlotte. The Panthers have a good bit of fans in SC, but college football is far and away more popular among people. I don't think either state could support a team by itself, although NC probably could if they were the Charlotte Panthers or whatever. It's like the Patriots, sure they could be the Boston Patriots and probably not lose much support but why do that when you instantly add fans over a whole region? Also, there just isn't much coverage in pro sports in the South. The Braves are basically the team of the whole region south of Virginia and East of Arkansas as far as I know. Basketball is the Hawks and Bobcats/Hornets I guess from the Charlotte days and now New Orleans, and Memphis has the Grizzlies. There isn't much success there, so lack of coverage I think contributes to the strong support of college teams. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
WHOLE DIK AND NUTS posted:It's like the Patriots, sure they could be the Boston Patriots and probably not lose much support but why do that when you instantly add fans over a whole region? Just want to point out that their original name was the Boston Patriots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
Other question. What are the rules about injury reports? I know Bill Belichick gets by with listing Tom Brady week after week as questionable, even though Brady always plays. But there's apparently no punishment for that or safeguard against Billy doing that. On the other hand I have always figured that there's some requirement to actually list players who are hurt. This just came up in the Colts' case because they said they'll list Peyton in accordance with league policy. But what would the penalty be if they didn't list Peyton for the whole week, then announced Sunday he was out? Does the league have a "If a guy never appears on the injury report, he better suit up" rule? And what's the punishment for breaking it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2011 17:19
|
|
|
Fines usually. Mangini was fined $125k in 2009 for repeated violations about Favre in '08. Belichick takes the piss out of it a bit by always listing Brady as probable. I believe the rules were changed a few years back where if a player missed any part of a practice during the week, they had to be listed on the injury report, and Brady is almost always given time off practice early in the week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
Can someone explain the differences between using a fullback and using an H-back? I found this FO article that sort of goes into it but I'm curious if these plays/formations are used a lot now or if defenses have schemed against that. The reason I even thought about it was I saw the Colts depth chart today and saw no fullbacks, and only H-backs. New England is the same way. Now, at this point, they could just be scrounging for one, or they could have none in their plans for this year. So, someone tell me about the H-back in current NFL systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
The H-Back is a fusion of the tight end and fullback position, so you essentially have a tight end who often lines up in the backfield as a fullback would and may motion up to the line; he also may line up at the line like a tight end and motion into the backfield. The Redskins (who invented it under Gibbs) still run an H-Back with Chris Cooley, though he's listed as a tight end. He rarely if ever runs the ball, his job is either to block or run routes. Motion allows a lot of flexibility (Gibbs invented it to counter Lawrence Taylor by always having an extra blocker on his side) and keeps the defense guessing. It's important to note that the FB position has kind of evolved (and now is dying) in the last decade or so. Now the only guys listed as FBs are pretty much pure blockers, whereas in the past you saw guys like Larry Centers, Keith Byars, and Kevin Turner listed as FBs alongside guys like Lorenzo Neal, Sam Gash, et al. Nowadays the first type would all just be listed as RBs and called "third down backs." Teams like the Patriots will use two RBs occasionally (say Woodhead and Green-Ellis; last year Morris was often used as an up-back) but none of them are fullbacks in the sense that their primary role is to be a blocking up-back. They do occasionally utilize their tight ends as H-Backs, having them motion into the backfield or out of the backfield and run routes or block. But the FB position such as it is is dying. Some teams still like to use the big bruising lead back , but a majority of teams are going to a singleback system with sets where any up-backs are either multipurpose running backs, motioned tight ends (H-Backs), or (in goal-line/short-yardage situations) just a big huge dude (going back to the Patriots, they used guys like Dan Klecko, Richard Seymour, and Dan Connolly in this role). HeroOfTheRevolution fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Why do you think Fullback is dying? Is it because defensive ends got quicker, or more 3-4 receiver formations, or anything like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
I think it also has to do with the shift in emphasis on offense away from the run (and I-formation in general) towards more passing-oriented gameplans. Why have a fullback when you can have a big TE who can catch a pass? I guess that doesn't really answer your question, maybe a better question is why lead blocking is going out of style. I know the Steelers tend to use more pulling guards than your standard madden FB sets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:Why do you think Fullback is dying? Is it because defensive ends got quicker, or more 3-4 receiver formations, or anything like that? A lot of it has to do with the evolution of offensive systems and the subsequent impact it had on other positions and personnel and how you can get better utility on limited roster spots by using guys who can perform various roles. I'll give a very brief explanation of how I mean this. Back with the single wing and wing-t, the fullback was the featured offensive player both in the running and passing game, though he would occasionally be used as a blocking back. With the advent of I/Pro formations the faster and more agile backs were used as the feature back to run the ball while the fullback was used as a lead blocker and pass catching threat who could carry the ball on an inside run from time to time, though sometimes as Hero mentioned, they would just be massive brick walls of men who primarily block. With the rule changes that heavily emphasize passing, offenses have an easier time taking advantage of space on the field, and gaining yards, by using 3, 4 or 5 WR sets and a singleback, with TE's, H-backs or RB's at slot positions in those formations to spread the defenses. There isn't much place for a guy who mostly specializes in blocking in an offense like this. Additionally, defensive coordinators are smart enough to run blitz when you line up in I set with a guy like Lorenzo Neal at fullback. Good DC's with even an average run defense will be able to scheme accordingly to shut down a team that's just going to line up and run power, sweep, trap and belly out of I variants. It's so much easier to move the ball by passing than it's ever been, so teams are shifting away from running I-sets as their primary formation. If you're only going to line up in a run heavy set for 15% of your plays, it doesn't make much sense to keep a dedicated blocking back on the roster when you can utilize your 2nd or 3rd HB or TE as a FB in the instances when you want a run heavy formation. Or you can run unbalanced formations with extra linemen since you need backups for those positions on the roster anyway. Or you can still run the ball effectively from a 1 back set if your passing game is doing its job to constrain the defense from lining up in 8 man fronts. I also think it's a lot easier, from a defensive standpoint, to shutdown a lead iso than it is to stop a good pass play that utilizes 4 receivers at different levels to stretch vertical/horizontal seams or flood a zone in a 3 vs. 2 situation. McKracken fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
BIGFOOT PEE BED posted:Why do you think Fullback is dying? Is it because defensive ends got quicker, or more 3-4 receiver formations, or anything like that? There are dozens of other contributing factors, as McKracken explained. Evolutionary and strategic stuff, which is all perfectly valid. I'm approaching it from the perspective of a GM who is trying to optimize a roster with limited space. From that perspective, the fullback position is the low-hanging fruit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
DO YALL WANT A HAM posted:Here's a question specific to crm or HooverFan if he's around or fiz if he actually lived in Charlotte: Is it weird to have a "Carolina" team? I can't imagine having some kind of Ohio-Indiana or Ohio-West Virginia team or something. Actually I can't even imagine having just an Ohio team, which I think is what the Columbus Blue Jackets are going for, but anyway...is it just kind of a different way of thinking, that North Carolina and South Carolina people just don't care much? To be honest, naming it "Carolina" was likely just a cynical ploy to get a fan base, trying to make those yokels down in SC feel included. In all truth, you could very well just call them the Charlotte Panthers. And beyond that, the Carolinas are indeed separate entities. As somebody pointed out above, SC doesn't really give a crap about anything beyond college football. NC is all about the college basketball. SC puts mustard crap on their BBQ which everybody knows is an affront to nature and possibly God. NC is pretty split up too. You've got the hippies out in Asheville, the Charlotte area which has been inundated with yankees, then the research triangle/college areas up along I-40, and then all the eastern carolina pig farmers. NC people can't even agree on how to make their BBQ - the eastern guys are all vinegar and the western half ("Lexington BBQ") use a tomato based sauce. Both are amazing and orders of magnitude better than that "carolina gold" down in SC. There is considerably less interest in the Panthers once you get outside of Charlotte. And in Charlotte, interest in the Hurricanes is virtually non-existent. And yes, "Carolina" refers to NC, and in the context of college sports, it means "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
McKracken posted:That was a great answer, thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Who is Lawfirm, and why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 11:38
|
|
|
Doppelganger posted:Who is Lawfirm, and why? BenJarvus Green-Ellis(, Esq). Because he represents. But really because he has a multi-part name that sounds like a law firm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 12:15
|
|
|
Who is Mike Ingram and why should I care about him? I ask because I drafted him on my fantasy team as a W/R/T largely as a dick move, since one of the other players was chatting about having trouble deciding between him and another player, and I felt like solving that quanderie for him
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Strange Matter posted:Who is Mike Ingram and why should I care about him? Mark Ingram is the former Heisman Trophy winning running back for the University of Alabama, and was the first round pick of the New Orleans Saints last April. It's always a gamble to take a rookie, but most people seem to like what Ingram brings to the table.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 16:00
|
|
