National Football League Thread

[skidmarkgn]

52 minutes ago, Cassylvania said:

Making the players come back onto the field to kick that meaningless PAT is something I hope the league changes next year

 

Never gonna happen.  Gambling and point spreads are way to important to the NFL.  Just look at how many rules have been made or changed just to promote offense for fantasy.  Sorry man, but it's here to stay.

 

Hopefully the main thing they'll look to change is the nonsense that defines what is and isn't a catch.

[broy300]

I think the Hawks are going to sign every old coach..... Poor Skiddy.

 

[Conker]

Well this is a huge shock https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/titans-and-mike-mularkey-are-reportedly-parting-ways-hours-after-talk-of-new-contract/

[MidnightDragon]

20 minutes ago, Jare said:

Well this is a huge shock https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/titans-and-mike-mularkey-are-reportedly-parting-ways-hours-after-talk-of-new-contract/

My guess is the team wanted him to do something he disagreed to.

[Cassylvania]

4 hours ago, skidmarkgn said:

Never gonna happen.  Gambling and point spreads are way to important to the NFL.  Just look at how many rules have been made or changed just to promote offense for fantasy.  Sorry man, but it's here to stay.

 

Hopefully the main thing they'll look to change is the nonsense that defines what is and isn't a catch.

 

That would make sense if the teams were required to kick the extra point, but they have the option of taking a knee, which is what the Vikings did (and, really, what any team in that situation would do). Thus, it just seems to me like a waste of time. That moment belonged to the team and the fans. Just seems ridiculous to drag the Saints players out there for such a meaningless play.

 

That said, the issue you brought up is definitely one that needs addressed. I'd also like to see a slight restructuring of the playoffs. I hate that a 7-9 team can host a playoff game to a 10-6 team, just because they play in an easier division. I also hate that common games is considered a tiebreaker over strength of schedule. Naturally, I say this as a Vikings fan who doesn't want to give up home field advantage this week, but consider the scenario. Both the Vikings and Eagles finished the year 13-3. I can't remember the exact breakdown, but the reason the Eagles get home field is because they beat the Panthers, who the Vikings lost to. But that was one of only three playoff teams (the Rams and Chiefs being the others) that the Eagles faced. The Vikings had to play the Saints, Steelers, Rams, Falcons, and Panthers during the regular season. Both teams lost one of those games. By rule, the Eagles get the higher seed, but is that really fair? Shouldn't the entirety of a season matter more than a single game? If it was head-to-head, sure, but I think a good argument could be made for SoS.

 

Obviously, neither of those things will be changed or even looked at, but I see at least one or two things in the playoffs every year that makes me raise an eyebrow to how seeding works.

[starcrunch061]

7 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

 

That said, the issue you brought up is definitely one that needs addressed. I'd also like to see a slight restructuring of the playoffs. I hate that a 7-9 team can host a playoff game to a 10-6 team, just because they play in an easier division.

 

There's no easy way to fix that, though. Your example extreme, but what about a 10-6 divisional champion vs. an 11-5 wild card? This is one rule I hope they leave as is. Your other point (which I deleted unfortunately) is spot-on. Some random transitive win takes precedence over SOS? Crazy...

 

Also, for earlier posts, Josh McDaniels is a hot commodity again, huh? Hoo boy.

Edited January 16, 2018 by starcrunch061

[acasser]

Divisions become meaningless if you remove the stipulation that a Division winner automatically gets a playoff game.  Yes, you occasionally have a terrible team win their Division because they're the least-bad option, but it's not prevalent enough.  Moreover, the point of giving the Division winner a playoff game and not just handing their spot to another Wild Card is that it's one specific playoff spot allotted to one team out of four that play near-identical schedules.  The Wild Card wasn't meant to override that, but simply to provide some sort of "safety net" for the really good team that has the misfortune of playing behind an even better team.  And yeah, once in a long while you get a 10-6 (or even 11-5) team that misses the playoffs as "the third Wild Card" in lieu of a mediocre Division winner, but my answer to that would be to tell said missing team the following:  Win your own (expletive deleted) division by beating the teams in front of you.

 

On the other hand, I'd be okay with allowing the Wild Card to host a division winner if they have a superior record.  I wouldn't get crazy with re-doing the brackets -- i.e., the Wild Cards are still the #5 and #6 seeds -- but you can do what the NBA does and assign "home field" based on record even while you assign the matchups based on seeding.

[Cassylvania]

1 hour ago, starcrunch061 said:

There's no easy way to fix that, though. Your example extreme, but what about a 10-6 divisional champion vs. an 11-5 wild card? This is one rule I hope they leave as is.

 

I was mainly thinking back to the Saints/Seahawks playoff game a few years ago, where that exact thing happened. (Actually, I just looked it up and I was wrong. It was the 7-9 Seahawks getting a home game against the 11-5 Saints.) In my opinion, the rule should be left as is, except in the case of a team with a losing record. It's ridiculous that a 7-9 team is allowed in the playoffs, let alone to host a game.

 

7 minutes ago, acasser said:

Divisions become meaningless if you remove the stipulation that a Division winner automatically gets a playoff game.  Yes, you occasionally have a terrible team win their Division because they're the least-bad option, but it's not prevalent enough.  Moreover, the point of giving the Division winner a playoff game and not just handing their spot to another Wild Card is that it's one specific playoff spot allotted to one team out of four that play near-identical schedules.  The Wild Card wasn't meant to override that, but simply to provide some sort of "safety net" for the really good team that has the misfortune of playing behind an even better team.  And yeah, once in a long while you get a 10-6 (or even 11-5) team that misses the playoffs as "the third Wild Card" in lieu of a mediocre Division winner, but my answer to that would be to tell said missing team the following:  Win your own (expletive deleted) division by beating the teams in front of you.

 

Yeah, I'm fine with all of this. Divisional rivalries are the best part of football. But there are scenarios out there where a 7-9 team hosts a playoff game for a 14+ win team. Sure, it's extremely unlikely, but the current rules allow it to happen. If I could change just one thing about it, I'd suggest making it that a team forfeits home field advantage if they finish the year with less than nine wins. Yes, your answer is right -- teams should win their own division -- but I think it's more important that they win the majority of their games.

 

27 minutes ago, acasser said:

On the other hand, I'd be okay with allowing the Wild Card to host a division winner if they have a superior record.  I wouldn't get crazy with re-doing the brackets -- i.e., the Wild Cards are still the #5 and #6 seeds -- but you can do what the NBA does and assign "home field" based on record even while you assign the matchups based on seeding.

 

Oh, your solution is even more lax than mine. I'm okay if a 9-7 division winner hosts a game for a 10-6 wild card. (I guess?) I just think it's stupid that a team who loses most of their games can be allowed home field advantage just because the other teams in their division are awful.

[ShadowStar83x]

I'd like it to be Jags/Vikings, but I think it'll probably be Patriots/Vikings. So fucking sick of seeing the Pats go. At least it'd be different. Still, I think a big mistake the Steelers made was they underestimated the Jags. The Pats won't.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Jigglypuff

[Conker]

12 hours ago, Cassylvania said:

I was mainly thinking back to the Saints/Seahawks playoff game a few years ago, where that exact thing happened. (Actually, I just looked it up and I was wrong. It was the 7-9 Seahawks getting a home game against the 11-5 Saints.) In my opinion, the rule should be left as is, except in the case of a team with a losing record. It's ridiculous that a 7-9 team is allowed in the playoffs, let alone to host a game.

I see your point but how rarely do teams with losing records get in, so in that case no none from NCF West deserved being in the playoffs? Not there fault sometimes divisions have terrible years. 

 

P.s  I loved that game and that Marshawn Lynch run, just amazing  

[Cobby_]

Lynch run? You misspelled BEASTQUAKE 

[Cassylvania]

15 hours ago, Jigglypuff said:

I'd like it to be Jags/Vikings, but I think it'll probably be Patriots/Vikings. So fucking sick of seeing the Pats go. At least it'd be different. Still, I think a big mistake the Steelers made was they underestimated the Jags. The Pats won't.

 

Pats/Vikings seems to be the most likely, and it'd be my preferred outcome, if the Vikings win it all. (Beating Tom Brady in the SB would be the perfect end to this season.) That said, let's not discredit the Jags. They have the formula that teams like the Broncos and Ravens have used to beat the Patriots in the past. We also shouldn't take too much stock from the Patriots only playoff game this year. I mean, it was against the Titans.

 

Unfortunately, I think the Eagles have a good chance too. If the Saints were still in the running, I'd probably pick them as Super Bowl favorites, but I think the Vikings are going to be in another nail-biter. I just hope they didn't use up all of their magic in that last game.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Cassylvania

[Conker]

My Conference Championship Tips

 

Patriots over Jags

Vikings over Eagles 

 

p.s good luck to all 4 teams  

[Conker]

The Tennessee Titans have named Former Texans DC Mike Vrabel as head coach http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22162638/mike-vrabel-hired-tennessee-titans-new-head-coach

[PerryToxteth]

14 hours ago, Jare said:

The Tennessee Titans have named Former Texans DC Mike Vrabel as head coach http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22162638/mike-vrabel-hired-tennessee-titans-new-head-coach

 

It really makes me feel old as more and more players I remember playing in college, get hired as NFL coaches. 

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

Missed the first 2.5 quarters...had to go buy food but heard the Jags were playing really well and crushing the Pats.

 

I come home with 8 minutes left in the third and things turn around lol. 

 

Lot of whining on FB pages about the refs but I can't exactly say since I missed most of the game.  not to mention, like with any sport, there are people bitching just to bitch. 

 

Not exactly "rooting" but I'd like the Vikings to win against the Eagles.

[skidmarkgn]

As soon as that last drive before the half happened it became obvious the Jags weren't going to be allowed to win the game.  Call me a hater or whatever but the timing couldn't have been more obvious.  They convert a 3rd down that had the chance to put the Pats almost out of it before halftime and bam, flag, flag, flag, flag, flag.  First, that delay of game.  I've been watching teams all year snap the ball at, or after 0 all season long with no flags... but they weren't playing against the Patriots.  The Gronk hit, good flag. The PI call to put them in scoring position, garbage.  And oh yeah, how many penalties were called against the Pats?  One.  The only thing that was missing was the refs taking away a TD from the Jags for no reason.

 

I hope this Superbowl is the lowest rated Superbowl in a long long time.  I know I'm not watching it.  The only way it won't be handed to the fucking Patriots is if Minnesota gets in and plays at home, because that's a bigger money making story.  

[PerryToxteth]

3 minutes ago, skidmarkgn said:

As soon as that last drive before the half happened it became obvious the Jags weren't going to be allowed to win the game.  Call me a hater or whatever but the timing couldn't have been more obvious.  They convert a 3rd down that had the chance to put the Pats almost out of it before halftime and bam, flag, flag, flag, flag, flag.  First, that delay of game.  I've been watching teams all year snap the ball at, or after 0 all season long with no flags... but they weren't playing against the Patriots.  The Gronk hit, good flag. The PI call to put them in scoring position, garbage.  And oh yeah, how many penalties were called against the Pats?  One.  The only thing that was missing was the refs taking away a TD from the Jags for no reason.

 

Really??? Griping about a delay of game as some conspiracy theory? Sorry, dude, the clock hit zero. It's a penalty. There's no argument there.

The Gronk head-hunting hit gets called now in the new NFL, 10 years ago, maybe not. I'm glad they flag that, no reason for guys to lose decades off their life for our entertainment.

Finally, that's pass interference. He made contact for over five yards down the field. He impeded the receiver from running the route. You might get away with it making last-second contact. But that guy made contact yard after yard after yard as they ran down the field. Maybe you're not used to seeing that called bc Richard Sherman gets All-Pro treatment and refs look they other way for him doing that, but that's a penalty for any other DB when you make contact so early before the ball gets there.

 

So yes, you are a hater. Congrats. 

[Conker]

The delay of game was easily there as were other calls overall the  refs weren't even that bad imo, did you not see Triplette on the first playoff game  ,  the Jags had a 10 point 4th qtr lead and lost to the Goat and some great defensive plays from Gilmore so not like they weren't playing well. Give credit the the Jags on a great season and Blake Bortles on another well played game, be very interesting to see what they do know with the qb position in the offseason.

 

 

 

 

[Cobby_]

The Gronk hit was head hunting? 

 

Alrighty then.. 

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

Eagles first touchdown was pretty impressive.

 

As much as I'd like the Vikings to win...it might be better for the Eagles to win after that screw up of advertising the Superbowl as being the Patriots vs Vikings.

[skidmarkgn]

1 hour ago, PerryToxteth said:

 

Really??? Griping about a delay of game as some conspiracy theory? Sorry, dude, the clock hit zero. It's a penalty. There's no argument there.

The Gronk head-hunting hit gets called now in the new NFL, 10 years ago, maybe not. I'm glad they flag that, no reason for guys to lose decades off their life for our entertainment.

Finally, that's pass interference. He made contact for over five yards down the field. He impeded the receiver from running the route. You might get away with it making last-second contact. But that guy made contact yard after yard after yard as they ran down the field. Maybe you're not used to seeing that called bc Richard Sherman gets All-Pro treatment and refs look they other way for him doing that, but that's a penalty for any other DB when you make contact so early before the ball gets there.

 

So yes, you are a hater. Congrats. 

 

I'm not disagreeing that it's a penalty when the clock hits zero, I'm pointing out that it's almost never called unless it's WELL past zero.  If a rule is a rule then it needs to be officiated consistently instead of only being enforced when it's a huge game changing penalty.

 

I also don't know why you're pointing out the Gronk hit when I put in plain english that it was a good flag.

 

I also find it funny that you're saying Sherm gets the "All-Pro treatment and refs look the other way" while bashing me because I think the Pats get the same thing.  

 

I also noticed you never addressed the Patriots only having a flag thrown against them one time the whole game.  No team plays that cleanly.  None.

 

Call me a hater if you will, but damned if you don't also sound like a huge homer.  Congrats.

[Conker]

So we will have a rematch of Superbowl XXXIX as it'll be The Patriots vs the Eagles facing of in Superbowl 52 in Minnesota 

[Avatar_Of_Battle]

14 minutes ago, Jare said:

So we will have a rematch of Superbowl XXXIX as it'll be The Patriots vs the Eagles facing of in Superbowl 52 in Minnesota 

 

I honestly didn't expect such a beat down. I figured the Vikings would have given the Patriots a better game.

 

As much as my New England brethren might hate me...I would like to have seen the Vikings win the Superbowl in their home state. Would have been cool. (Wouldn't they have been the first ever?)

[skidmarkgn]

When the playoffs started a whole lot of people thought the Eagles were kind of the booby prize to whoever got to play them because of Wentz going down.  And on the NFC side of the playoffs, the Eagles were definitely on the bottom of my list of teams that would be playing in the Superbowl.  Sometimes all you can do is tip your cap and say"nicely done".