Options

[NFL] Thread: Snoop Dogg Likes Green

Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho HoDisconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
Bold Prediction: Teams will win and teams will lose.

Santa Claustrophobia on
«13456743

Posts

  • Options
    marajimaraji Registered User regular
    And then, after August, some very special teams will tie.

  • Options
    Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    I'm at the point where the Lions are playing with house money. While the Buc's game was closer than I would have liked, I was no where near as stressed out as the Ram's game. I don't expect much from the 49er's game, but crazier things have happened. Especially if Deebo is still out and the weather is a factor again.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    Trajan45 wrote: »
    I'm at the point where the Lions are playing with house money. While the Buc's game was closer than I would have liked, I was no where near as stressed out as the Ram's game. I don't expect much from the 49er's game, but crazier things have happened. Especially if Deebo is still out and the weather is a factor again.

    Yeah I agree with this, it's house money now. I was kinda already there for the Bucs game but losing at home would have been mildly embarassing. At this point they could lose 50-0 to SF and I wouldn't be too upset.

  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Seems like KC-BAL is the real super bowl this year

  • Options
    BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Seems like KC-BAL is the real super bowl this year

    And probably won't be close. Considering how shitty our run stopping, especially inside the tackles, was last night, unless Lamar slips and falls on his own dick, we're going to get pounded into submission like a drum.

    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • Options
    SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    On the one hand the endzone fumble touchback is kind of consistent with the ball going out of the end zone on kickoffs and punts. But it is inconsistent with the normal out of bounds rules that possession doesn't change and you cannot advance an OOB fumble, that is, the defense is benefitting from the ball going forward which is even acknowledged as problematic since there's an additional rule against batting the ball out. So in my opinion it should be changed to return the ball to the offense at the point of the fumble, making it consistent with the rest of the game.

    Or maybe they should change all OOB fumbles to a change of possession. That would at least be consistent.

    Or heck, if they want to keep the stupid endzone fumble touchback rule, maybe the should just bring back the incomplete pass in the endzone is a touchback rule.

    I don't understand this argument at all. If you want consistency across all 120 yards of the field then what do you do about a safety? Eliminate it, spot the ball in the endzone, and resume play?

    The endzone having unique rules compared to the field of play makes plenty of sense to me. American Football is a weird sport with weird rules, but I don't think this is one of them.

    A safety only happens because the offense intentionally moved the ball out of the field of play and into their own endzone. And they have been driven off the field of play by the defense so the defense is given an award for their good play. Just as a touchdown is awarded for the offense's good play. A fumble by definition has no player controlling where it goes so there is no intentionality to the play, and attempting to make it intentional is a penalty. Nor is there any intentional action done by the defense to claim possession (recovering the fumble). Nor did the fumble actually occur in the endzone to make it "unique". In this particular case and unlike a safety the defense is given an award for essentially doing nothing. And the only time the defense is given this award for an OOB fumble is after they have nearly failed and been driven completely off the field by the offense. I'm saying a fumble that goes out of the endzone by the offense, because the fumble happens in the field of play and not actually in the endzone, should simply be treated like all other fumbles in the field of play.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Lions still have some roster holes (they need a real #1 corner, another DT, another pass rusher, think they can get some upgrades at LB) but waaaaaaaay fewer than they've ever had before.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Options
    lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 22
    Butters wrote: »
    On the one hand the endzone fumble touchback is kind of consistent with the ball going out of the end zone on kickoffs and punts. But it is inconsistent with the normal out of bounds rules that possession doesn't change and you cannot advance an OOB fumble, that is, the defense is benefitting from the ball going forward which is even acknowledged as problematic since there's an additional rule against batting the ball out. So in my opinion it should be changed to return the ball to the offense at the point of the fumble, making it consistent with the rest of the game.

    Or maybe they should change all OOB fumbles to a change of possession. That would at least be consistent.

    Or heck, if they want to keep the stupid endzone fumble touchback rule, maybe the should just bring back the incomplete pass in the endzone is a touchback rule.

    I don't understand this argument at all. If you want consistency across all 120 yards of the field then what do you do about a safety? Eliminate it, spot the ball in the endzone, and resume play?

    The endzone having unique rules compared to the field of play makes plenty of sense to me. American Football is a weird sport with weird rules, but I don't think this is one of them.

    A safety only happens because the offense intentionally moved the ball out of the field of play and into their own endzone. And they have been driven off the field of play by the defense so the defense is given an award for their good play. Just as a touchdown is awarded for the offense's good play. A fumble by definition has no player controlling where it goes so there is no intentionality to the play, and attempting to make it intentional is a penalty. Nor is there any intentional action done by the defense to claim possession (recovering the fumble). Nor did the fumble actually occur in the endzone to make it "unique". In this particular case and unlike a safety the defense is given an award for essentially doing nothing. And the only time the defense is given this award for an OOB fumble is after they have nearly failed and been driven completely off the field by the offense. I'm saying a fumble that goes out of the endzone by the offense, because the fumble happens in the field of play and not actually in the endzone, should simply be treated like all other fumbles in the field of play.

    I don't see how intention matters in a fumble. End zones can be special. You send the ball out of play at the endline in association football and the defending team gets a goal kick instead of a normal inbounds play.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • Options
    ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited January 22
    Except its still a live ball when its not on the field of play anymore. The endzone is the endzone and it has different rules because each side owns and defends a goal line whereas the field is neutral territory. Undetermined possession and simultaneous possession default to the offense because you can't really do a jump-ball in this sport.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • Options
    SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    edited January 22
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    On the one hand the endzone fumble touchback is kind of consistent with the ball going out of the end zone on kickoffs and punts. But it is inconsistent with the normal out of bounds rules that possession doesn't change and you cannot advance an OOB fumble, that is, the defense is benefitting from the ball going forward which is even acknowledged as problematic since there's an additional rule against batting the ball out. So in my opinion it should be changed to return the ball to the offense at the point of the fumble, making it consistent with the rest of the game.

    Or maybe they should change all OOB fumbles to a change of possession. That would at least be consistent.

    Or heck, if they want to keep the stupid endzone fumble touchback rule, maybe the should just bring back the incomplete pass in the endzone is a touchback rule.

    I don't understand this argument at all. If you want consistency across all 120 yards of the field then what do you do about a safety? Eliminate it, spot the ball in the endzone, and resume play?

    The endzone having unique rules compared to the field of play makes plenty of sense to me. American Football is a weird sport with weird rules, but I don't think this is one of them.

    A safety only happens because the offense intentionally moved the ball out of the field of play and into their own endzone. And they have been driven off the field of play by the defense so the defense is given an award for their good play. Just as a touchdown is awarded for the offense's good play. A fumble by definition has no player controlling where it goes so there is no intentionality to the play, and attempting to make it intentional is a penalty. Nor is there any intentional action done by the defense to claim possession (recovering the fumble). Nor did the fumble actually occur in the endzone to make it "unique". In this particular case and unlike a safety the defense is given an award for essentially doing nothing. And the only time the defense is given this award for an OOB fumble is after they have nearly failed and been driven completely off the field by the offense. I'm saying a fumble that goes out of the endzone by the offense, because the fumble happens in the field of play and not actually in the endzone, should simply be treated like all other fumbles in the field of play.

    I don't see how intention matters in a fumble. End zones can be special. You send the ball out of play in association football and the defending team gets a goal kick instead of a normal inbounds play.

    Intentionality matters to the people making the rules since it's a penalty to intentionally swat a fumbled ball out of bounds to your advantage.
    Butters wrote: »
    Except its still a live ball when its not on the field of play anymore. The endzone is the endzone and it has different rules because each side owns and defends a goal line whereas the field is neutral territory. Undetermined possession and simultaneous possession default to the offense because you can't really do a jump-ball in this sport.

    Yes, and in this case possession is undetermined because the ball was never recovered in the endzone or otherwise. So yes, I agree it should default back to the offense like it does in other cases.

    SiliconStew on
    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • Options
    ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    It should default to the offense in neutral territory, but I disagree that it should in the endzone because the territory isn't neutral.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • Options
    SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    It should default to the offense in neutral territory, but I disagree that it should in the endzone because the territory isn't neutral.

    The fumble never occurs in the endzone.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    It should default to the offense in neutral territory, but I disagree that it should in the endzone because the territory isn't neutral.

    The fumble never occurs in the endzone.

    It can occur in the offense's own end zone.

  • Options
    ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Also, I don't care if it occurs in the field of play, its still a live ball in the endzone until it is either possessed or out of bounds.

    I think we have reached the point where we all understand each other and just don't agree on the matter.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • Options
    Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Lions still have some roster holes (they need a real #1 corner, another DT, another pass rusher, think they can get some upgrades at LB) but waaaaaaaay fewer than they've ever had before.

    With less competent coaching (so the Lions normal), you get more holes cause marginal guys don’t improve their performance enough to be functional, yeah

    But but

    The question is if they’re still drafting marginal guys and coaching them up where they couldn’t before or they’re also drafting better than league-worst like before

  • Options
    SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    It should default to the offense in neutral territory, but I disagree that it should in the endzone because the territory isn't neutral.

    The fumble never occurs in the endzone.

    It can occur in the offense's own end zone.

    We aren't talking about safety's here. But yes that can result in a safety because the offense intentionally (the rules use the word impetus, but same thing) took the ball into their own end zone and if it is not recovered, the spot where the ball is down is where they last possessed it in the endzone. Technically it could be spotted further back if it went OOB backwards, but it's all endzone so that's moot. The ball being spotted down in the endzone is what creates the actual safety, not that it was fumbled or went out of bounds there except in that those determine the spot.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Lions still have some roster holes (they need a real #1 corner, another DT, another pass rusher, think they can get some upgrades at LB) but waaaaaaaay fewer than they've ever had before.

    With less competent coaching (so the Lions normal), you get more holes cause marginal guys don’t improve their performance enough to be functional, yeah

    But but

    The question is if they’re still drafting marginal guys and coaching them up where they couldn’t before or they’re also drafting better than league-worst like before

    Not a lot of Teez Tabors on this roster. Guys who looked athletic but sucked at actual football. Prior Lions regimes would draft like, Steele Chambers in the first round.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Options
    wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    edited January 22
    I think it's also a function of the Lions being bad at an awful time to be bad. Rookie contracts were reformed starting 2011 and we had Suh(2010) and CJ (2007)as #2 overalls and Stafford(2009) at #1 taking up a huge chunk of the cap.

    In 2012 50% of the Lions cap was going to those 3 plus Vanden Bosch.

    In 2014 Suh had the highest cap number in the league

    wazilla on
    Psn:wazukki
  • Options
    ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited January 22
    Yeah I think Matt Ryan was like the league's second-highest paid player the day he signed his rookie contract which really ruffled the feathers of the league's proven stars.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    Lions still have some roster holes (they need a real #1 corner, another DT, another pass rusher, think they can get some upgrades at LB) but waaaaaaaay fewer than they've ever had before.

    With less competent coaching (so the Lions normal), you get more holes cause marginal guys don’t improve their performance enough to be functional, yeah

    But but

    The question is if they’re still drafting marginal guys and coaching them up where they couldn’t before or they’re also drafting better than league-worst like before

    Not a lot of Teez Tabors on this roster. Guys who looked athletic but sucked at actual football. Prior Lions regimes would draft like, Steele Chambers in the first round.

    I think Teez was actually pretty slow for a corner. It was a case of Quinn saying the tape is more important than measureables. A lot fo the 'Patriot' type of players on defense were slow. Bill Belichick can build an elite defense out of other people's scraps, but his assistants can't, and there's no reason to build with scraps if you have actual good draft position.

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Smurph wrote: »
    Lions still have some roster holes (they need a real #1 corner, another DT, another pass rusher, think they can get some upgrades at LB) but waaaaaaaay fewer than they've ever had before.

    With less competent coaching (so the Lions normal), you get more holes cause marginal guys don’t improve their performance enough to be functional, yeah

    But but

    The question is if they’re still drafting marginal guys and coaching them up where they couldn’t before or they’re also drafting better than league-worst like before

    Not a lot of Teez Tabors on this roster. Guys who looked athletic but sucked at actual football. Prior Lions regimes would draft like, Steele Chambers in the first round.

    I think Teez was actually pretty slow for a corner. It was a case of Quinn saying the tape is more important than measureables. A lot fo the 'Patriot' type of players on defense were slow. Bill Belichick can build an elite defense out of other people's scraps, but his assistants can't, and there's no reason to build with scraps if you have actual good draft position.

    He sucked in college. Just routinely torched.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Options
    dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39363004/source-lions-reach-deal-veteran-te-zach-ertz

    booooooo
    niners aren't the bad guys anymore
    now you have to root against the ravens and lions as a matter or principle

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    What's the problem with Zach Ertz?

  • Options
    MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39363004/source-lions-reach-deal-veteran-te-zach-ertz

    booooooo
    niners aren't the bad guys anymore
    now you have to root against the ravens and lions as a matter or principle

    Did the Niners cut Bosa or something?

  • Options
    PellaeonPellaeon Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39363004/source-lions-reach-deal-veteran-te-zach-ertz

    booooooo
    niners aren't the bad guys anymore
    now you have to root against the ravens and lions as a matter or principle

    Did the Niners cut Bosa or something?

    Cut him a 170 million dollar check!

    Oh, wait, you mean....uh, no

  • Options
    dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    Smurph wrote: »
    What's the problem with Zach Ertz?

    championship carpetbaggers are the worst
    obj, dalvin cook, zach ertz....

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • Options
    marajimaraji Registered User regular
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    What's the problem with Zach Ertz?

    championship carpetbaggers are the worst
    obj, dalvin cook, zach ertz....

    Kevin Durant

  • Options
    dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    objection
    this is the football thread

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • Options
    DixonDixon Screwed...possibly doomed CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 22
    maraji wrote: »
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    What's the problem with Zach Ertz?

    championship carpetbaggers are the worst
    obj, dalvin cook, zach ertz....

    Kevin Durant

    He's the only one I really dislike...but that's cause the GSW are heinous

    Dixon on
  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Dixon wrote: »
    maraji wrote: »
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    What's the problem with Zach Ertz?

    championship carpetbaggers are the worst
    obj, dalvin cook, zach ertz....

    Kevin Durant

    He's the only one I really dislike...but that's cause the GSW are heinous

    It's America. GSW's are way too commonplace.

    Shit. Not a gun control thread...

  • Options
    Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    What's the problem with Zach Ertz?

    championship carpetbaggers are the worst
    obj, dalvin cook, zach ertz....

    Just curious, who else would you like them to sign? We're down to 1 TE (LaPorta) on the team. Our TE's coach apparently was on the Eagles when Ertz was there.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • Options
    GyralGyral Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39363004/source-lions-reach-deal-veteran-te-zach-ertz

    booooooo
    niners aren't the bad guys anymore
    now you have to root against the ravens and lions as a matter or principle

    Did the Niners cut Bosa or something?

    Considering how non-existent he's be once he got paid, you could convince me he had been.

    25t9pjnmqicf.jpg
  • Options
    SeñorAmorSeñorAmor !!! Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    On the one hand the endzone fumble touchback is kind of consistent with the ball going out of the end zone on kickoffs and punts. But it is inconsistent with the normal out of bounds rules that possession doesn't change and you cannot advance an OOB fumble, that is, the defense is benefitting from the ball going forward which is even acknowledged as problematic since there's an additional rule against batting the ball out. So in my opinion it should be changed to return the ball to the offense at the point of the fumble, making it consistent with the rest of the game.

    Or maybe they should change all OOB fumbles to a change of possession. That would at least be consistent.

    Or heck, if they want to keep the stupid endzone fumble touchback rule, maybe the should just bring back the incomplete pass in the endzone is a touchback rule.

    I don't understand this argument at all. If you want consistency across all 120 yards of the field then what do you do about a safety? Eliminate it, spot the ball in the endzone, and resume play?

    The endzone having unique rules compared to the field of play makes plenty of sense to me. American Football is a weird sport with weird rules, but I don't think this is one of them.

    A safety only happens because the offense intentionally moved the ball out of the field of play and into their own endzone. And they have been driven off the field of play by the defense so the defense is given an award for their good play. Just as a touchdown is awarded for the offense's good play. A fumble by definition has no player controlling where it goes so there is no intentionality to the play, and attempting to make it intentional is a penalty. Nor is there any intentional action done by the defense to claim possession (recovering the fumble). Nor did the fumble actually occur in the endzone to make it "unique". In this particular case and unlike a safety the defense is given an award for essentially doing nothing. And the only time the defense is given this award for an OOB fumble is after they have nearly failed and been driven completely off the field by the offense. I'm saying a fumble that goes out of the endzone by the offense, because the fumble happens in the field of play and not actually in the endzone, should simply be treated like all other fumbles in the field of play.

    Why then can't the defense also be awarded for forcing the ball out of the end zone behind them?

  • Options
    Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    What is a punt other than a very long forward fumble? Being treated like a touchback seems consistent enough.

  • Options
    BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Gyral wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    dlinfiniti wrote: »
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39363004/source-lions-reach-deal-veteran-te-zach-ertz

    booooooo
    niners aren't the bad guys anymore
    now you have to root against the ravens and lions as a matter or principle

    Did the Niners cut Bosa or something?

    Considering how non-existent he's be once he got paid, you could convince me he had been.

    He's preparing to coast into a talking head gig as the Pat MacAfee for non-closeted Neo Nazis.

    No matter where you go...there you are.
    ~ Buckaroo Banzai
  • Options
    dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    this hypocrisy
    buncha fair weather fans rooting for fair weather players

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    What is a punt other than a very long forward fumble? Being treated like a touchback seems consistent enough.

    A punt is choosing to give the ball away and cannot be recovered by the kicking team. Even if kicked out of bounds pre-fourth down. A kick-off is by rule giving the ball away after a point has been scored or to start a period of play. It can be recovered by the kicking team.

    Neither of those is like a fumble touchback except for the change of possession.

  • Options
    Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    What is a punt other than a very long forward fumble? Being treated like a touchback seems consistent enough.

    A punt is choosing to give the ball away and cannot be recovered by the kicking team. Even if kicked out of bounds pre-fourth down. A kick-off is by rule giving the ball away after a point has been scored or to start a period of play. It can be recovered by the kicking team.

    Neither of those is like a fumble touchback except for the change of possession.

    Yes, punting has extra rules grafted on for various reasons. They aren't consistent, either. But the effects of the end zone on possession change are consistent. It's a fine rule and it can be avoided by not dribbling the ball at the goal line.

  • Options
    wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    I think we should make the rules about fumbling the ball consistent with other rules about fumbling the ball instead of rules that aren't about fumbling the ball.

    Psn:wazukki
  • Options
    Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited January 23
    Awesome, this pointless debate is still going on. I was afraid I missed it again. I’m being totally serious here because I do want to keep discussing it!

    I’m on team this rule is as stupid as it gets, and for me it’s just about impact on game outcome/momentum. In every other situation provided (safety, punts, kickoff, fumble out of bounds), the situation is relatively unchanged for both sides. But the fumble out the end zone is a massive reversal.

    Take a safety as the extreme. The offense is already backed up as far as they can be, and they aren’t gaining any ground (they get sacked). You might say two points is way more punitive than a turnover, but the alternative to a safety is probably punting from your end zone. And given the range of kickers these days, it’s entirely possible the other team could kick a FG without running any other plays. Which puts you down 3 points instead of 2. It just doesn’t feel like that big of a swing.

    But fumbling out of the end zone takes a team that is on the cusp of scoring 7 and almost certainly 3 pts, and gives the ball to the other team with a comfortable starting field position. It’s a huge swing! Which obviously you also get for an interception or fumble recovery, but without the requirement of the defense actually gaining possession.

    It’s not logically inconsistent, because there is no logical consistency to football rules. But it feels way out of line in terms of momentum changes for what was accomplished.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Sign In or Register to comment.