Re: The NFL Offseason Thread

[Banedon]

Mike and Mike made an interesting point, why no Pats?

 

Yawn. It's like a song that was good the first time you heard it, but it gets played and played and played...eventually everyone is sick of it!

 

Honestly though, after the Bears lost the Super Bowl they didn't get a prime time game to start the follow season either.

[CuseCubFan69]

Mike and Mike made an interesting point, why no Pats?

 

Yawn. It's like a song that was good the first time you heard it, but it gets played and played and played...eventually everyone is sick of it!

 

Honestly though, after the Bears lost the Super Bowl they didn't get a prime time game to start the follow season either.

 

Hmmm Bears or Pats, I think there is a bit of a difference there. One team has the most explosive offense in football history the other has a QB who can't hold on to a snap, hmm what to choose, what to choose?

[Banedon]

Mike and Mike made an interesting point, why no Pats?

 

Yawn. It's like a song that was good the first time you heard it, but it gets played and played and played...eventually everyone is sick of it!

 

Honestly though, after the Bears lost the Super Bowl they didn't get a prime time game to start the follow season either.

 

Hmmm Bears or Pats, I think there is a bit of a difference there. One team has the most explosive offense in football history the other has a QB who can't hold on to a snap, hmm what to choose, what to choose?

 

Both went the same distance in the playoffs. I get what you're saying, I'm just saying that it's consistent with past behavior. 2005's Super Bowl loser was the Seahawks, and they started the season against Detroit.

 

The year before that, Philly did get the Monday night game after losing the Super Bowl, but it appears to be that the Super Bowl loser really just doesn't get any special consideration with opening games...

[Jon]

There are limits on how many times a team can appear on prime time. Without knowing the rest of the schedule, it's quite possible that the networks think there are other weeks this season that will benefit more from a Patriots game on TV than during the first weekend.

[CuseCubFan69]

Mike and Mike made an interesting point, why no Pats?

 

Yawn. It's like a song that was good the first time you heard it, but it gets played and played and played...eventually everyone is sick of it!

 

Honestly though, after the Bears lost the Super Bowl they didn't get a prime time game to start the follow season either.

 

Hmmm Bears or Pats, I think there is a bit of a difference there. One team has the most explosive offense in football history the other has a QB who can't hold on to a snap, hmm what to choose, what to choose?

 

Both went the same distance in the playoffs. I get what you're saying, I'm just saying that it's consistent with past behavior. 2005's Super Bowl loser was the Seahawks, and they started the season against Detroit.

 

The year before that, Philly did get the Monday night game after losing the Super Bowl, but it appears to be that the Super Bowl loser really just doesn't get any special consideration with opening games...

 

Hey, I don't like the Pats at all but they are the most exciting team to watch play and not only that, I'm sure they are getting to be one of the most hated as well. But, you're probably right and you can only put so many on there and this isn't the time the NFL needs to attract viewers as we know once the season progresses no one will want to watch the Raiders and only on "Opening Day" will anyone other than their fans care to watch them.

[CuseCubFan69]

There are limits on how many times a team can appear on prime time. Without knowing the rest of the schedule, it's quite possible that the networks think there are other weeks this season that will benefit more from a Patriots game on TV than during the first weekend.

 

I was hoping the NFL would have the Pats vs the Giants on TV at least one quarter of the games on, like MLB does the Sox and Yanks! (Yes I know they aren't even in the same conference)

[Jon]

Trib[/url]"]In recent weeks, the league considered legislating against punting out of bounds—which teams did frequently when opposing Hester last season. A survey was sent to head coaches and general managers to get their reaction to such a rule, but the response was overwhelmingly against changing what often is a strategic move to trap an opponent inside his own 20-yard line rather than kicking into the end zone for a touchback.

 

The NFL's competition committee also had a discussion about enacting a new rule, but it didn't go very far.

............

In a move that gave defenses a slight advantage they previously did not have, the NFL approved the proposal that allows a sideline coach to communicate with a defensive player on the field through a wireless device.

 

The league was two votes shy of adopting the rule a year ago, and it passed this year, in part because it will help avoid future Spygates. There will be no reason to give signals from the sideline if the microphone and speaker system is working.

 

There was one difference in the 2008 proposal from the 2007 proposal: this time, it was proposed that teams may designate two players who can wear the radio. But they can't be on the field at the same time with the receiver in their helmets.

............

The league also voted to table a proposal that would force players to cut or tuck in long hair that covers the names on the backs of uniforms. NFL owners are expected to vote on the controversial rule in May.

I'm surprised the proposed Hester Rule even got that far.

[Jon]

Some other interesting rule notes from the AP:

 

-The playoff reseeding proposal was shot down before it was even voted upon

-The forceout rule for receptions has been eliminated

-Teams can now defer to the second half when they win a coin toss

-FGs and PATs are now subject to instant replay

-A direct snap from center that is untouched by the QB will now be a live ball

-The 5-yard incidental facemask penalty as been eliminated

[rawaction]

Some other interesting rule notes from the AP:

 

-The playoff reseeding proposal was shot down before it was even voted upon

-The forceout rule for receptions has been eliminated

-Teams can now defer to the second half when they win a coin toss

-FGs and PATs are now subject to instant replay

-A direct snap from center that is untouched by the QB will now be a live ball

-The 5-yard incidental facemask penalty as been eliminated

 

Does that mean an incidental facemask will be no penalty or will be a 15-yarder also?

[Derwood]

Some other interesting rule notes from the AP:

 

-The playoff reseeding proposal was shot down before it was even voted upon

-The forceout rule for receptions has been eliminated

-Teams can now defer to the second half when they win a coin toss

-FGs and PATs are now subject to instant replay

-A direct snap from center that is untouched by the QB will now be a live ball

-The 5-yard incidental facemask penalty as been eliminated

 

Does that mean an incidental facemask will be no penalty or will be a 15-yarder also?

 

15 yards. it's another blow against defenses across the league. i'm surprised they haven't made it only 5 yards to get a first down yet (with 7 downs to do it)

[CubColtPacer]

Some other interesting rule notes from the AP:

 

-The playoff reseeding proposal was shot down before it was even voted upon

-The forceout rule for receptions has been eliminated

-Teams can now defer to the second half when they win a coin toss

-FGs and PATs are now subject to instant replay

-A direct snap from center that is untouched by the QB will now be a live ball

-The 5-yard incidental facemask penalty as been eliminated

 

Does that mean an incidental facemask will be no penalty or will be a 15-yarder also?

 

15 yards. it's another blow against defenses across the league. i'm surprised they haven't made it only 5 yards to get a first down yet (with 7 downs to do it)

 

That's not true. If a person grabs the face mask and lets go, there will be no penalty called anymore. The 15 yarder is still only reserved for the same things that it was before.

 

It's interesting to see how many of the others were based off of one game. The direct snap from center thing was from that Bears game last year. The field goal was from the Browns game. The forceout rule was a Cardinals game?

 

I know a lot of football fans who never even knew you couldn't defer in the NFL. I've always wondered why they didn't change that before now. There's no reason not to add just a little bit of extra strategy in the game with no real detriment.

[jersey cubs fan]

-The forceout rule for receptions has been eliminated

 

The forceout rule was a Cardinals game?

 

Isn't that a relatively frequent call? A friend of mine hates that one and will be happy. I think it's probably a good thing to overturn.

[CubColtPacer]

-The forceout rule for receptions has been eliminated

 

The forceout rule was a Cardinals game?

 

Isn't that a relatively frequent call? A friend of mine hates that one and will be happy. I think it's probably a good thing to overturn.

 

It tended to get called once or twice a week, so frequent but not likely in any particular game. Most of the time it didn't generate much controversy, even if most fans didn't particularly like it. There was a game earlier in the year though where on the last play of the game under the rules a forceout should have been called in the end zone, but it wasn't. That caused the team to lose the game. It generated a lot of buzz, and I'm not surprised that the forceout rule came into question the year after that particular game. The NFL is a very reactionary league on many of their rules.

[treebird]

so does this mean that anytime a receiver jumps to catch a pass near the sideline, the defense can just throw him out of bounds and it will be incomplete?

 

i like the sound of that.

[jersey cubs fan]

-The forceout rule for receptions has been eliminated

 

The forceout rule was a Cardinals game?

 

Isn't that a relatively frequent call? A friend of mine hates that one and will be happy. I think it's probably a good thing to overturn.

 

It tended to get called once or twice a week' date=' so frequent but not likely in any particular game. Most of the time it didn't generate much controversy, even if most fans didn't particularly like it. There was a game earlier in the year though where on the last play of the game under the rules a forceout should have been called in the end zone, but it wasn't. That caused the team to lose the game. It generated a lot of buzz, and I'm not surprised that the forceout rule came into question the year after that particular game. The NFL is a very reactionary league on many of their rules.[/quote']

 

True, but that's not necessarily bad, at least in this case.

[jersey cubs fan]

so does this mean that anytime a receiver jumps to catch a pass near the sideline, the defense can just throw him out of bounds and it will be incomplete?

 

i like the sound of that.

 

They already try, and it's easier said than done.

[CubColtPacer]

so does this mean that anytime a receiver jumps to catch a pass near the sideline, the defense can just throw him out of bounds and it will be incomplete?

 

i like the sound of that.

 

From all I've heard about the proposal, I think there's still one exception that the defense can't catch the offensive player in the air to hold them up and then essentially carry them out of bounds.

 

They can knock them out though in the air, and it definitely will change some offenses in the red zone. I don't think it will matter much between the 20's.

[Banedon]

so does this mean that anytime a receiver jumps to catch a pass near the sideline, the defense can just throw him out of bounds and it will be incomplete?

 

i like the sound of that.

 

They already try, and it's easier said than done.

 

Sure, but lets say they throw a 40 yard bomb and a pushout happens...that's going to be negated now if the defense manages to push them out of bounds before both feet come down?

 

EDIT: I suppose it is a lot less likely on a long pass.

[CuseCubFan69]

I didn't realize that a direct snap from center that wasn't touched by a QB wasn't a live ball? I don't get it, if he snaps it and no one touches the ball, it can just lay there?

[Jon]

I didn't realize that a direct snap from center that wasn't touched by a QB wasn't a live ball? I don't get it, if he snaps it and no one touches the ball, it can just lay there?

Here's the explanation for the previous rule:

Biggs[/url]"]

If you recall the game that saved the Bears’ season (before it was lost the very next week with a home loss to the Detroit Lions), the score was tied at 9 in the fourth quarter in Philadelphia when a snap from center Olin Kreutz went through quarterback Brian Griese’s legs untouched and the ball was eventually scooped up by Eagles safety Sean Considine, the Byron, Ill., product, and returned to the Bears’ nine-yard line before Cedric Benson ran him down. Who said Benson could not outrun defensive backs?

 

The Eagles were on the door step about to take control of the game.

 

Or so we thought.

 

In stepped referee Ed Hochuli, who blew the play dead and called a false start against the Bears, explaining when a quarterback is under center and the snap goes past him untouched, the play is dead and it’s a penalty.

 

Not anymore. According to ESPN’s John Clayton, ``a direct snap from center that goes backward will now be treated as a fumble. Previously, it was ruled a false start.’’

 

Officiating supervisor Art McNalley was at the game at Lincoln Financial Field and he quickly confirmed Hochuli had made the right call. The Bears, who retained possession near midfield, went on to get a 45-yard field goal from Robbie Gould, and triumphed 19-16 when Griese executed the now infamous 97-yard drive without the aid of his helmet communication system, capping it with a 15-yard touchdown toss to Muhsin Muhammad.

 

``If the ball is snapped in between the quarterback’s legs, he has to be the one to get the ball,’’ McNalley said in a pool report. ``Under these circumstances, it has to be ruled a false start. If he’s in shotgun and the [ball] is snapped over his head, [it’s a] clean play. Pick it up. Go ahead and go the other way. Everything’s fine. The fact that he's taking the snap direct from the center [and the ball] goes through his legs, [the referee has] got to kill it right away, false start.

 

``I don't know what the intent of the rule is. The ball has to be taken by the quarterback.’’

I believe I heard that the rule was put in to protect against poor playing surfaces with the thinking that there's no other reason why a snap under center would not reach the QB's hands.

[CuseCubFan69]

I didn't realize that a direct snap from center that wasn't touched by a QB wasn't a live ball? I don't get it, if he snaps it and no one touches the ball, it can just lay there?

Here's the explanation for the previous rule:

Biggs[/url]"]

If you recall the game that saved the Bears’ season (before it was lost the very next week with a home loss to the Detroit Lions), the score was tied at 9 in the fourth quarter in Philadelphia when a snap from center Olin Kreutz went through quarterback Brian Griese’s legs untouched and the ball was eventually scooped up by Eagles safety Sean Considine, the Byron, Ill., product, and returned to the Bears’ nine-yard line before Cedric Benson ran him down. Who said Benson could not outrun defensive backs?

 

The Eagles were on the door step about to take control of the game.

 

Or so we thought.

 

In stepped referee Ed Hochuli, who blew the play dead and called a false start against the Bears, explaining when a quarterback is under center and the snap goes past him untouched, the play is dead and it’s a penalty.

 

Not anymore. According to ESPN’s John Clayton, ``a direct snap from center that goes backward will now be treated as a fumble. Previously, it was ruled a false start.’’

 

Officiating supervisor Art McNalley was at the game at Lincoln Financial Field and he quickly confirmed Hochuli had made the right call. The Bears, who retained possession near midfield, went on to get a 45-yard field goal from Robbie Gould, and triumphed 19-16 when Griese executed the now infamous 97-yard drive without the aid of his helmet communication system, capping it with a 15-yard touchdown toss to Muhsin Muhammad.

 

``If the ball is snapped in between the quarterback’s legs, he has to be the one to get the ball,’’ McNalley said in a pool report. ``Under these circumstances, it has to be ruled a false start. If he’s in shotgun and the [ball] is snapped over his head, [it’s a] clean play. Pick it up. Go ahead and go the other way. Everything’s fine. The fact that he's taking the snap direct from the center [and the ball] goes through his legs, [the referee has] got to kill it right away, false start.

 

``I don't know what the intent of the rule is. The ball has to be taken by the quarterback.’’

I believe I heard that the rule was put in to protect against poor playing surfaces with the thinking that there's no other reason why a snap under center would not reach the QB's hands.

 

Jeeze, thanks Jon. I never realized that was a rule and assumed it was always a live ball.

[Jon]

Man, Dallas must REALLY want the title of "America's Favorite Felony Team" back from Cincinnati.

They better hurry, then:

AP[/url]"]CINCINNATI -- Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry is in trouble again, accused by an 18-year-old man who told police that Henry hit him in the face and broke his car window with a beer bottle.

 

Henry, 24, was charged with misdemeanor assault and criminal damaging in the Monday incident in Cincinnati. A warrant for his arrest was issued Wednesday, and Henry surrendered, a police spokesman said.

 

Henry was being held in the Hamilton County jail pending a court appearance Thursday.

[rocket]

oh that wacky chris henry

[Jon]

And the Bengals have cut Chris Henry.

[Derwood]

did anyone else see the completely awkward Chad Johnson phone interview on Sports Center last night?