|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:Falcons started this season 6-0 and looked like they finally turned a corner...then lost all but one of the rest of their games. The only team they beat were the Panthers, who are now likely to win the Super Bowl. Again that sounds like West Ham. We are usually in top half of the EPL then we come down faster than the Xmas decorations by January.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
I'm a pretty big NFL fan and I still have to be reminded that the Tennessee Titans exist at least a couple times a year. I would pick the Falcons over the Jets or Bills, just from an entertainment standpoint. I am semi-fans of both teams, and this year was atypically good, but in general there is something in those teams' DNA that mandates that their offense be almost un-watchable-y boring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
I dunno, Bills have Tyrod Taylor at QB now, who's good for one improbably good QB scramble a game. Although Falcons do have Julio saving basically any throw Matty Ice makes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I'm a pretty big NFL fan and I still have to be reminded that the Tennessee Titans exist at least a couple times a year. Rude
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Rude Joke's on them when Mariota shatters Cam's season passing + rushing TDs record in route to winning Super Bowl LIV
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Also a brit (liverpool) so I just picked the packers as it was fan owned & seemed like the logical choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Also a brit (liverpool) so I just picked the packers as it was fan owned & seemed like the logical choice. please don't fall for the "fans own the team" Packers bullshit
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Definitely going Falcons. Been watching season highlights this evening, and I'm liking their whole plucky underdog who sometimes play like world beaters then other times like they've never seen a football before. This is definitely my poo poo. Plus their shirts cool and their stadium looks like R2 D2's anus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Definitely going Falcons. Been watching season highlights this evening, and I'm liking their whole plucky underdog who sometimes play like world beaters then other times like they've never seen a football before. This is definitely my poo poo. The Goatse Dome hasn't opened yet. I think they start this season though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Definitely going Falcons. Been watching season highlights this evening, and I'm liking their whole plucky underdog who sometimes play like world beaters then other times like they've never seen a football before. This is definitely my poo poo. Also their most famous fan is Samuel L Jackson. You chose well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Definitely going Falcons. Been watching season highlights this evening, and I'm liking their whole plucky underdog who sometimes play like world beaters then other times like they've never seen a football before. This is definitely my poo poo. As a Saints fan, I'd like to welcome you to the NFC South. Please enjoy our traditions of being the only division since 2002 to send all four of its teams to the conference championships, Southern "Charm", being a division where no team is a founding NFL or AFL member, and all 4 teams have losing franchise records due to loooooong stretches of being abysmally bad. Also, you root for Atlanta so I'm obligated to inform you that I loathe the Flacons and hope that General Sherman rises from the grave and makes Atlanta panic and burn itself to the ground again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Barudak posted:As a Saints fan, I'd like to welcome you to the NFC South. Please enjoy our traditions of being the only division since 2002 to send all four of its teams to the conference championships, Southern "Charm", being a division where no team is a founding NFL or AFL member, and all 4 teams have losing franchise records due to loooooong stretches of being abysmally bad. Also, you root for Atlanta so I'm obligated to inform you that I loathe the Flacons and hope that General Sherman rises from the grave and makes Atlanta panic and burn itself to the ground again. Look at this, Serotonin. This is a Saints fan. This is your new enemy. You must be prepared to talk massive amounts of poo poo in his direction. This is how Falcons fans live.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Do I have any songs to learn about shoving flags up his arse? Are these people more civil than English soccer fans?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Do I have any songs to learn about shoving flags up his arse? Are these people more civil than English soccer fans? Suicide is painless
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Do I have any songs to learn about shoving flags up his arse? Are these people more civil than English soccer fans? Fun fact: General William T. Sherman burned Atlanta in the Civil War, then became the first superintendent of Louisiana State University. That's a pretty good hook for Atlanta fans to hate New Orleans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Fun fact: General William T. Sherman burned Atlanta in the Civil War, then became the first superintendent of Louisiana State University. That's a pretty good hook for Atlanta fans to hate New Orleans. Other way around. He was at LSU, they asked him to join the CSA, and he went "no you guys are going to lose." Then gave a personal demonstration of how. Actually, what's amazing is he predicted, before the war started, exactly how it would play out. He was brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
That's cool, I'm quite interested in the American Civil War and I knew about the Atlanta burning thing. Stayed up late and watched the Super Bowl last night. Watching the Broncos rekindled my past memories of hating them when Elway was the QB. The presentation of MVPs also made me feel old as gently caress as some of my past heroes like Riggins and Montana were wheeled out and were old men and then I realised last time I was heavily into NFL was the mid 198Os.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
john riggins brain is a spiderweb
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:Falcons started this season 6-0 and looked like they finally turned a corner...then lost all but one of the rest of their games. The only team they beat were the Panthers, who are now likely to win the Super Bowl. Let me demystify it for you: 2015 Falcons against: AFC South: 3-1 NFC East: 4-0 Everyone else: 1-7 They creamed the two shittiest divisions in football and then were terrible against everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:That's cool, I'm quite interested in the American Civil War and I knew about the Atlanta burning thing. If you haven't already, you should read Lincoln, by Gore Vidal .
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Let me demystify it for you: That does clear it up a lot. Still, ruining the Panthers until-that-point-perfect season was funny, and was the perfect demonstration of Panthers doing what they had done until then. Establish a lead early, then check out before the game was done. Except that time it bit them in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
v2vian man posted:john riggins brain is a spiderweb and nobody can tell the difference
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Playing Madden just now I had a situation that has confused me a little. I'm running a run play with Rawls who fumbles the ball, my wide receiver Gordon then recovers the fumble and runs it the distance for a TD. Why isn't this counted as a rushing attempt? Officially the game put it down as a 96 yard fumble recovery but it doesn't show up in the stats anywhere. If its a fumble recovery then surely that's a defensive play? What are the rules once the ball is fumbled? Does that then turn my team from the offensive team to the defensive team or is it ruled as a continuation of the original rushing play?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
IIRC, a fumble recovery is just that. Doesn't count as a rushing attempt or a catch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
What is the logic behind counting a sack as lost passing yards in the NFL? It presupposes that the tackle behind the line defeated a pass in the first place, when there's not really any way to tell if the QB was actually running a pass play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
El Seano posted:What are the rules once the ball is fumbled? Does that then turn my team from the offensive team to the defensive team or is it ruled as a continuation of the original rushing play? No, your team is still the offensive team. If it's, for example, 2nd and 8, you fumble and recover it with a 0 yard gain, you will still be at 3rd and 8 in the next play. If it's 2nd and 8, you fumble, recover it, gain 9 yards running and get tackled, it's a first down, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Sash! posted:What is the logic behind counting a sack as lost passing yards in the NFL? It presupposes that the tackle behind the line defeated a pass in the first place, when there's not really any way to tell if the QB was actually running a pass play. Because designed QB runs that are stopped behind the LOS are so rare that its statistically irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Sash! posted:What is the logic behind counting a sack as lost passing yards in the NFL? It presupposes that the tackle behind the line defeated a pass in the first place, when there's not really any way to tell if the QB was actually running a pass play. 99+% of the time in the NFL when a quarterback is caught behind the LOS it's while he's attempting to pass the ball. Quarterback runs are rare, and they usually are the result of a scramble that goes for positive yardage. Thus, counting a sack against passing yardage is reasonable since it was almost certainly a pass play. Read option plays are starting to appear, but they're still not common. College football has a lot more running quarterbacks and expecting scorers everywhere to be able to tell accurately and reliably just what the play was supposed to be makes it more complicated. Thus sacks are counted against rushing yards just for the sake of simplicity and uniformity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
With the rookie wage scale, is it tied to draft round, or overall number drafted? Like is pick 32 this year going to get paid similarly to pick 32 last year? The Pats not having a 1st round pick this year alters the math a little and I am just curious if it's going to result in some guy getting shafted out a million bucks or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Why is playing D-Line so much more tiring than O-Line? My understanding is that D-Line players are the 'explosive' ones on pass plays (trying to kill the guy in front of them to get to the QB) and O-Line guys are the ones exploding on run plays (trying to pancake their guy to open up a lane), so shouldn't it even out? The two big examples of this I can think of are an interview with an o-lineman who played for Chip Kelly at Oregon and later for the Eagles; he said he loved the hurry up because he was facing off against people who were completely out of breath and ruined by the 7th or 8th play of a hurry up drive. Shouldn't he be gassed too? More obviously, players are considered freaks if they don't sub off the d-line during a drive (e.g. Dontari Poe or Suh), but o-lines don't ever substitute except for injury.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
the effort of trying to get past someone is a lot greater than the effort of trying to stop them. so on pass plays especially, DL are just trying harder, and all OL have to do is remain in front of them and contain them. yeah, that can be really hard against good DL, but it's not as exhausting. then on run plays, there's things like pursuit that wear down DL more than OL. if the running back gets past the line of scrimmage, DL are expected to turn and pursue him; OL are not necessarily expected to fly down the field and throw another block
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Adrenalist posted:Why is playing D-Line so much more tiring than O-Line? My understanding is that D-Line players are the 'explosive' ones on pass plays (trying to kill the guy in front of them to get to the QB) and O-Line guys are the ones exploding on run plays (trying to pancake their guy to open up a lane), so shouldn't it even out? The two big examples of this I can think of are an interview with an o-lineman who played for Chip Kelly at Oregon and later for the Eagles; he said he loved the hurry up because he was facing off against people who were completely out of breath and ruined by the 7th or 8th play of a hurry up drive. Shouldn't he be gassed too? More obviously, players are considered freaks if they don't sub off the d-line during a drive (e.g. Dontari Poe or Suh), but o-lines don't ever substitute except for injury. The offensive players know the play that's coming. They know who has to really bust it and who's going to be off the play. They can pace themselves. The OC can move plays around to stress different players and let others catch a rest. The defense, on the other hand, has no idea where the play is coming. Every player has to bust his rear end off the line on every play - and much of that effort is wasted as the play goes a different direction. If a guy dogs it for one play to catch his breath, he may be the man to block to spring a big play. Mental fatigue is a big part of it, too. Constantly trying to figure out where the play is going and who should be where with what assignments pre-snap is tough. Being in the wrong defensive formation and confusion as to who's covering whom is also a large contributor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The defense, on the other hand, has no idea where the play is coming. Every player has to bust his rear end off the line on every play - and much of that effort is wasted as the play goes a different direction. If a guy dogs it for one play to catch his breath, he may be the man to block to spring a big play. Baylor is a great example of this (midway down the page.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
I wonder how long it'll be before they start having one of those apparently loafing receivers run a jerk route?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Barudak posted:As a Saints fan, I'd like to welcome you to the NFC South. Please enjoy our traditions of being the only division since 2002 to send all four of its teams to the conference championships, Oh please, you just have to go back one year and the NFC West has done the same thing. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
FIRST TIME posted:Oh please, you just have to go back one year and the NFC West has done the same thing. Please, like we can count that far back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
If your division doesn't send three of its four teams to the playoffs (and the other is the Browns) then it sucks, hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
I have question about roster designations, and it seems the rules thread is closed. During the regular season, if a player is injured and ruled "out" does he still count against the 53 man roster count? I know suspended players and IR players don't count towards the total, but I'm not sure about players that are "out". My first thought is that the players becomes deactivated and won't count against the total, but wanted to make sure. Edit: \/\/\/Thanks! MacheteZombie fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Yes a player listed as out counts toward the 53 man roster, they have to be on the IR/NFI/PUP list to not count (usually IR for what you're talking about). They do not count as one of the 46 active players on game day, so there are a few extra guys on the active roster to make sure teams aren't totally screwed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
Random thought that came into my head: if a player were to have his helmet knocked off then somehow the ball end up in the helmet would the ball be dead?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 05:45
|
|