NFL Discussion - 2013 Season

He called it "one of the worst plays he has ever seen."

 

Let's look at this logically for a second... there's no doubt that Welker was used in a pick/rub play. But the idea that he was used to take Talib out? Why would you use your midget who already has 2 concussions on the year as the human torpedo? If it's a malicious play with intent to take somebody out, you use somebody like big ol' Julius Thomas.

 

Well that and Welker didn't even hit him low. In fact if you watch the tape and weren't aware that Talib had sustained an injury, it would be tough to tell who got the worst of it.

 

I think Denver wins a low scoring game. Something like 20-17. I think the defense will slow Peyton down but they are still going to get a couple of TD's and a FG or two. I just don't think Wilson will be able to match him without a monster effort from Lynch and some short field turnovers from Denver. The Seattle offense isn't great but they aren't going to kill themselves either. They pretty much just stood there last night and waited for SF to make the costly mistakes late.

 

Yep, that's right... no knock downs/sacks and he's only been hit once (or maybe only once each game, but no more than that).

 

Well I'm not going to go that far. There is obviously something between Welker and BB that has been festering for some time now. The Patriots lost that game because they couldn't run the ball, get Peyton off the field on third down and Brady missed some big plays down the field. I didn't see a lot of crying form NE, they just didn't execute.

 

A lot of bad blood between those two off the field, read somewhere today that Michael Crabtree tried picking a fight with him at a charity event last year.
Link to a Story

 

At this stage, I'm not sure I'm going to buy any of the stories until something comes directly from Sherman... that's the third different (and most extreme) version of the charity event incident I've read the last few days. I've also heard that he just said "something" to Sherman and that the issue was that he kept saying how he would beat Sherman on the field and he wouldn't let it drop.

 

Just that it's a change from all other levels of the sport. The basic "gameplay" of football is the same from high school to the pros; eliminating PATs changes it. An alternative that keeps the gameplay the same could be moving the try further back if you want to increase the difficulty of scoring on a kick.

But for competition purposes, I think the idea has merit. It will be met with resistance, but it would make the game more exciting.

 

I wish they would just chill out for a little while and fix the obvious shit that needs fixing. Focus on the challenge system along with replay and once that gets ironed out then we can look at other things. At this point it feels like they are tinkering just for the sake of tinkering. The PAT is stupid but the proposed changes are huge and change the entire dynamic of the game, especially from the coaching perspective. So far I'm in favor of maybe spotting the ball on the 30 yard line for the extra point so the kicker doesn't have an absolute gimme. I'm not sure about the "two point conversion" method on every TD.

 

Goal line stands are always exciting too, so it would definitely be a plus as far as entertainment value goes.

I'm not really comfortable with marginalising special teams and kickers specifically even further though, so the opposite idea of moving the extra point back a bit is more appealing to me.

 

Wait, I heard somewhere that the idea was to go ahead and just award 7 for the TD, and if you want to go for two, you have to gamble a point? (i.e., if you miss the try, you get 6, if you make it you get 8, otherwise you get 7).

That sounds even dumber. No one would ever risk going for two in that scenario unless they absolutely needed the point at the end of the game. Make it 6 for the TD and 2 more for the try, eliminate the ability to get 7 or move the kick further back.

Would certainly mess up the scenario books, since you'd never see games in multiples of 7/14/21/28 etc anymore.

 

He's a poor sport and a crybaby.

 

Why? That's exactly how it works NOW. Only difference is that they waste everyone's time with a 20 yard FG "try" first before awarding the 7th point. You get 6 automatically, and then can take the gimme point, or gamble the automatic one by trying for 2 instead. This proposal just saves everyone the effort on the kick, as the success rate is over 99%.

Wouldn't change anything for scoring, or scenario books, or anything, as it's exactly the way it is now. Just saves time by not forcing the automatic kick first. Your decision to go for 2 or not would be exactly the same, and for the same reasons.

Only thing that could possibly change is scenarios where your kicker or holder just got hurt, and you don't think it's automatic. Even then, though, usually someone that trains as the backup and could still get the gimme kick through.

It would be a few minutes faster this way, and you also avoid the occasional injury on these nonsense extra points. Gronkowski's broken arm (forget if it was the first one or the re-break) came on blocking for an extra point in a meaningless blowout game. Freak injury, sure, but you DO have starters playing in the extra point try on both sides of the ball, and losing a marquee player on that nonsense is just silly.