The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

GoldFour4

Dunno whether this was posted anywhere in the forum, found it funny!

Son Of A Vidic

To the style of Peyton, Tom and Russell I like to...

Realt Dearg Sec

Anyone see where Goodell was talking about getting rid of the PAT? Instead the TD would be automatically seven. Then if you decided to 'go for two', you'd either gain a point or lose one. What do ye think? I don't personally see what difference it makes, actually, saves us a couple of seconds watching PATs each game? Other than that it would basically be business as usual, when you think about it.

TaosHum

When 98.5% of them are being made, I can see the sense of getting rid of them.

I quite like Goddell's idea. Only thing that changes is not having to go through the formality of having to kick the PAT.

Pudsy33

I'd be in favor of keeping them, purely because it gives kickers and punters something else to do.

Knex*

Don't see any benefit to removing them. So unless I'm missing something, leave it be.

polaris68

Maybe just move the kicking position off centre to increase the difficulty. The current 98.5% success rate is clearly much too high.

TaosHum

What's the point having something if there is no need for it? A 98.5% completion rate means its little more than a formality, so why even bother running the play?

The benefit is not having to go through the formality of it.

Realt Dearg Sec

polaris68 wrote: »

Maybe just move the kicking position off centre to increase the difficulty. The current 98.5% success rate is clearly much too high.

Apparently since 2004 the completion is even higher, 99.1%!

My point was not so much for or against removing it as a formality, as replacing it with something good. Goodell wants it to be more exciting (as always, and I have my doubts whether that should always be the objective when formulating changes to the game, but anyway that's for another day) but the idea he has floated is pretty much the status quo minus the actual kick. Anyone have more exciting ideas?

rockonollie

Knex. wrote: »

Don't see any benefit to removing them. So unless I'm missing something, leave it be.

Because Gronk broke his arm on a PAT attempt and Lord Belicheck complained :P

adrian522

They could move the LOS for PAT back to the 20, making it a 38 yard kick, still kickers should get that most of the time, but a good percentage would be missed.

raze_them_all_

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Apparently since 2004 the completion is even higher, 99.1%!

My point was not so much for or against removing it as a formality, as replacing it with something good. Goodell wants it to be more exciting (as always, and I have my doubts whether that should always be the objective when formulating changes to the game, but anyway that's for another day) but the idea he has floated is pretty much the status quo minus the actual kick. Anyone have more exciting ideas?

I'd like to see it like rugby tbh. Place the ball where it was scored, 10-15 yards back. Actually make the special teams relevant and learn some new plays. Kick it away, or run, or throw, just do something!

Knex*

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Apparently since 2004 the completion is even higher, 99.1%!

My point was not so much for or against removing it as a formality, as replacing it with something good. Goodell wants it to be more exciting (as always, and I have my doubts whether that should always be the objective when formulating changes to the game, but anyway that's for another day) but the idea he has floated is pretty much the status quo minus the actual kick. Anyone have more exciting ideas?

Turn the PAT into Rugby style conversions.

edit: As above by Raze!

spiralism

Richard Sherman is Tupac

raze_them_all_

With all the stuff about sherman going on I forgot to bring it up (until cbs reminded me) What do we think of BB accusing Welker of intentionally injuring Talib?

rockonollie

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

With all the stuff about sherman going on I forgot to bring it up (until cbs reminded me) What do we think of BB accusing Welker of intentionally injuring Talib?

A 180lb receiver with a serious concussion history intentionally running full speed into a 210lb DB.......seems unlikely.

Also, none of the news sites have mentioned the fact that the patriots set a similar pick on D Thomas a couple of plays earlier.

When ESPN discussed the play yesterday, they made the best point I've heard since.......if it was a planned play for Denver to set a pick to take out Talib......with all their 6+ foot, 230lb receivers, why would they choose their smallest and most injury prone receiver to be the one to take the hit.

raze_them_all_

rockonollie wrote: »

A 180lb receiver with a serious concussion history intentionally running full speed into a 210lb DB.......seems unlikely.

Also, none of the news sites have mentioned the fact that the patriots set a similar pick on D Thomas a couple of plays earlier.

When ESPN discussed the play yesterday, they made the best point I've heard since.......if it was a planned play for Denver to set a pick to take out Talib......with all their 6+ foot, 230lb receivers, why would they chose their smallest and most injury prone receiver to be the one to take the hit.

cbs mentioned that about the similar play. To me BB seems to do anything to deflect blame from losses these days

TO.

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

cbs mentioned that about the similar play. To me BB seems to do anything to deflect blame from losses these days

Oh yeah have you other examples of Bill deflecting from our other losses this year?

Whatever his beef with Welker is he clearly didn't blame that play for losing the game. Good to see people are buying into the medias nonsense on it.

rockonollie

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

cbs mentioned that about the similar play. To me BB seems to do anything to deflect blame from losses these days

I didn't hear CBS mention it.....I stand corrected.

I don't think BB is trying to blame the loss on the play, he saw a play he felt may have been intentional and he spoke his mind.

It's the likes of CBS and ESPN that have tried to link Talib being out to the result of the game, considering how well he played against Manning in the regular season.....it's a valid point, but not one that BB has made.

BizzyC

The thing that annoyed me about the Talib hit was that on the previous drive Hoomanamanui was flagged for running a pick that barely made contact.

Looking at the replay though, Welker was looking at Manning when he made contact. Even if it was intentional, that is usually enough to avoid a flag.

I've seen BB comment on the play itself, but he hasn't made any remark as to the result in relation to it.

After a loss BB does nothing but reuse the same phrases: "they played better"/"were coached better".
You never hear him blaming a single play, mistake or call by the referees on a loss, probably in part to the fact that he gives nothing away to the press.

rockonollie

The exact statement from BB

"It was a deliberate play by the receiver to take out Aqib. No attempt to get open. I'll let the league handle the discipline on that play, whatever they decide. It's one of the worst plays I've seen. That's all I'll say about that."

Of course on ESPN, the headline reads "Belichick rips Welker for hit on Talib"......it's just the way ESPN are

nerd69

rockonollie wrote: »

The exact statement from BB

"It was a deliberate play by the receiver to take out Aqib. No attempt to get open. I'll let the league handle the discipline on that play, whatever they decide. It's one of the worst plays I've seen. That's all I'll say about that."

Of course on ESPN, the headline reads "Belichick rips Welker for hit on Talib"......it's just the way ESPN are

Well it's not like there way off the ball to be fair

Hazys

It was definitely intentional by Welker and illegal where should have drawn a flag.

Whether it was malicious and he truly set out to injure Talib, only Welker knows that.

I completely understand BB anger, he has to look out for his players.

Blured

rockonollie wrote: »

The exact statement from BB

"It was a deliberate play by the receiver to take out Aqib. No attempt to get open. I'll let the league handle the discipline on that play, whatever they decide. It's one of the worst plays I've seen. That's all I'll say about that."

Of course on ESPN, the headline reads "Belichick rips Welker for hit on Talib"......it's just the way ESPN are

Think BB made it a story. It wasn't a response to a question about the play, it was part of his opening remarks in his press conference. He made a point of talking about the play

Son Of A Vidic

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Anyone see where Goodell was talking about getting rid of the PAT? Instead the TD would be automatically seven. Then if you decided to 'go for two', you'd either gain a point or lose one. What do ye think? I don't personally see what difference it makes, actually, saves us a couple of seconds watching PATs each game? Other than that it would basically be business as usual, when you think about it.

The muppet might be better served if he focus his attention on protecting players knees from dangerous hits. Through no fault of their own,the obsession with the concussion issue has forced players to go low and we've seen the consequences. Players health should always be a priority for Goodell rather than some BS tinkered with game scores.

rockonollie

Down to 8 potential teams for Hard Knocks.

Arizona Cardinals
Buffalo Bills
Chicago Bears
Jacksonville Jaguars
New York Giants
Oakland Raiders
Pittsburgh Steelers
St. Louis Rams

Of the 8, the 3 I'd be most interested in would be the Steelers (trying to come to terms with an aging defense), the Giants (attempting to regroup after a terrible season) or the Bills (young team on the brink of making a breakthrough)

Guffy

DA BEARS!!

Realt Dearg Sec

I would obviously like to see the Bears training camp but I wonder if it has a negative effect. I mean, I can't see any, but there must be a reason franchises generally don't like the Hard Knocks people coming in, and why they made it compulsory.

nerd69

anyone watching the pro bowl draft no? (i know it sucks but i try to trick myself every year :mad:)

davyjose

nerd69 wrote: »

i know it sucks but i try to trick myself every year :mad:

Lol, me too. It was fun watching Luck and Wilson light it up last year.