Super Bowl LII Thread

[skinsfaninok]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-the-new-norm/

Man I really like this guy, I know it may be premature but could the Eagles have the next legend HC in the making?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-the-new-norm/

Man I really like this guy, I know it may be premature but could the Eagles have the next legend HC in the making?

no,

[skinsfaninok]

https://247sports.com/nfl/philadelph...rade-114869895

wow hell no

[Schneed10]

I work about a mile and a half from the Philadelphia Art Museum where the parade route is ending. I can hear the crowd from here.

The city is going crazy. It's neat to see, but my prevailing emotion is intense envy. I won't attend any festivities, the rivalry demands it.

But man does this REALLY make me want the Redskins to win one again. I'll attend that parade, for sure.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I work about a mile and a half from the Philadelphia Art Museum where the parade route is ending. I can hear the crowd from here.

The city is going crazy. It's neat to see, but my prevailing emotion is intense envy. I won't attend any festivities, the rivalry demands it.

But man does this REALLY make me want the Redskins to win one again. I'll attend that parade, for sure.

That's awesome man, I wish we could experience that too soon but shit it sucks not getting there .

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I work about a mile and a half from the Philadelphia Art Museum where the parade route is ending. I can hear the crowd from here.

The city is going crazy. It's neat to see, but my prevailing emotion is intense envy. I won't attend any festivities, the rivalry demands it.

But man does this REALLY make me want the Redskins to win one again. I'll attend that parade, for sure.

I'll say it now. Barring huge health or money issue, I'll be there ! No ocean will prevent me from living this !

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The fucking balls on Pederson to call the exact same play call BB did.....but this one worked.

It was an "illegal play".............(formation)

https://www.upi.com/https:/www.upi.c...5261518481746/

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

It was an "illegal play".............(formation)

https://www.upi.com/https:/www.upi.c...5261518481746/

Before the play, you can see the receiver checking with the official if he's on the line of scrimmage, the judge doesn't make the signal that he's in the backfield.
So the formation was deemed legal.

It would have been illegal if the judge had his arm extended toward the backfield, signaling the receiver was in the backfield.
Anyway, it didn't create another eligible receiver, since the man at the end of the line had an ineligible number, and would have had to report as eligible to the officials to be eligible. That wasn't the case.

So it's not like it created one more receiver to cover. It didn't change anything for the defense.

And again, on many plays you could say the receiver, or the tight end, or the tackle is lined up in the backfield, ultimately, the signal of the side judge is the reference for everybody. (Players and officials).

So once the official didn't make the signal that the receiver was in the backfield, there was no flag to be thrown.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

https://247sports.com/nfl/philadelph...rade-114869895

wow hell no

Q: How do you break an Eagles Fan's finger?

A: Punch him in the nose.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Before the play, you can see the receiver checking with the official if he's on the line of scrimmage, the judge doesn't make the signal that he's in the backfield.
So the formation was deemed legal.

It would have been illegal if the judge had his arm extended toward the backfield, signaling the receiver was in the backfield.
Anyway, it didn't create another eligible receiver, since the man at the end of the line had an ineligible number, and would have had to report as eligible to the officials to be eligible. That wasn't the case.

So it's not like it created one more receiver to cover. It didn't change anything for the defense.

And again, on many plays you could say the receiver, or the tight end, or the tackle is lined up in the backfield, ultimately, the signal of the side judge is the reference for everybody. (Players and officials).

So once the official didn't make the signal that the receiver was in the backfield, there was no flag to be thrown.

I'm sticking with the expert on this one..


"FOX rules analyst and former NFL official Mike Pereira said Monday on a podcast that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Nick Foles' fourth-down touchdown in Super Bowl LII was an illegal play."

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I'm sticking with the expert on this one..


"FOX rules analyst and former NFL official Mike Pereira said Monday on a podcast that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Nick Foles' fourth-down touchdown in Super Bowl LII was an illegal play."

Yeah the judge should have signaled the receiver to be in the backfield, making it an illegal formation, but once he didn't after the receiver checked towards him the play was legal.

Plus even Pereira says "It’s kind of one of those that has no effect on the play. I get it. But they didn’t line up properly." ... Well Mike you could say that on a LOOOT of plays, I don't get undermining the officials work on insignificant details like that!

Mike Pereira: Eagles were in illegal formation on Philly Special – ProFootballTalk

[skinsfaninok]

Time to close this thread, F the eagles HTTR