NFL ratings, TV deals, Jersey sales, Rule changes, Expansion, etc

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by MTK

Kirk has played well against Philly in the past but we all know he’s a slow starter

Isn't Coach Gruden the slow starter, isn't he 0-4 in openers for the Redskins?

[MTK]

Kirk usually takes a few games to settle down is all I was saying

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by MTK

Kirk usually takes a few games to settle down is all I was saying

yeah but now u watch, he will be on fire week 1 and win lol

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

Kirk usually takes a few games to settle down is all I was saying

This is absolutely true, he has shown a distinct tendency to make spaz throws and spaz decisions early in the season and in crunch moments late in the season.

I don't think he settles himself down real well. Early in the season you have all that build up, it takes a cool customer to chill out and make good throws. And then when playoff pressure ramps up - spaz city (Giants, ahem).

I don't think he's a big game guy. At least he has to prove that he is. Maybe he will.

Now keep in mind Philly probably won't have Wentz. But the point stands about Kirk being a first game spaz. He is what he is until he proves otherwise.

[Defensewins]

Of course the NFL had keep a part of the catch that keep creating controversy and protects the offense. 1 & 2 are all that is needed. #3 is stupid.
Go back to the old rule 1 & 2 only.


NFL teams unanimously approve simplified catch rule - NFL.com

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Of course the NFL had keep a part of the catch that keep creating controversy and protects the offense. 1 & 2 are all that is needed. #3 is stupid.
Go back to the old rule 1 & 2 only.


NFL teams unanimously approve simplified catch rule - NFL.com

I think it's about formulation.

IMHNNESO (FYI, this stands for: In My Humble Non-Native-English-Speaker Opinion) once you have the concept of "control of the ball", you must define a time element.

Because how would you precisely define controlling the ball other than having the ball NOT moving... for a given period of time ?

So the final part simply is a way to phrase that time element without the word "time", so it looks less subjective...

All there's to remember is that they got rid of the "surviving the ground" part, which created so much controversy.

I think it might take a few weeks before the rule is consistently applied the same way, but I feel like it's a step in the direction of closing the gap between the rule and how people think it should be.

[MTK]

Watching ESPN I can’t help but think what’s up with this sneakers with a suit look?

I don’t understand going through the trouble of putting on a nice suit only to wear sneakers. Just sloppy.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

I think it's about formulation.

IMHNNESO (FYI, this stands for: In My Humble Non-Native-English-Speaker Opinion) once you have the concept of "control of the ball", you must define a time element.

Because how would you precisely define controlling the ball other than having the ball NOT moving... for a given period of time ?

So the final part simply is a way to phrase that time element without the word "time", so it looks less subjective...

All there's to remember is that they got rid of the "surviving the ground" part, which created so much controversy.


I think it might take a few weeks before the rule is consistently applied the same way, but I feel like it's a step in the direction of closing the gap between the rule and how people think it should be.

However the old rule is ok on the sideline, when the receiver catches the ball near the out of bounds, catches the ball, gets two feet down and gets pushed out of bounds or his momentum forces him out of bounds. That is still ok. No need to make a third move. Why? Because it helps the offense.
How about the new rule for tackling. Really bad.
They have never and will never throw a flag for a ball carrier or offensive player that lowers their head and initiates contact. This only get applied defensive players.
Player lowering head to inflict contact now subject to 15-yard penalty and possible ejection | National | oleantimesherald.com

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

However the old rule is ok on the sideline, when the receiver catches the ball near the out of bounds, catches the ball, gets two feet down and gets pushed out of bounds or his momentum forces him out of bounds. That is still ok. No need to make a third move. Why? Because it helps the offense.
How about the new rule for tackling. Really bad.
They have never and will never throw a flag for a ball carrier or offensive player that lowers their head and initiates contact. This only get applied defensive players.
Player lowering head to inflict contact now subject to 15-yard penalty and possible ejection | National | oleantimesherald.com

Overall I do think the new rule is meant to call more catches, so yeah, it will help the offense a bit.

[skinsfan69]

Pretty much on every tackle a defender has to lower his head. This is just another example of the NFL owners not being able to get out of their own way. I guess what they're saying is a defender has to stay tall to make a tackle. It's so stupid and going to confuse the refs even more than they're already confused.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by MTK

Watching ESPN I can’t help but think what’s up with this sneakers with a suit look?

I don’t understand going through the trouble of putting on a nice suit only to wear sneakers. Just sloppy.

Yeah I have also wondered how they can get away with that look, but I guess ESPN is just very laid back now a days. I couldn't wear Nikes with a suit

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Pretty much on every tackle a defender has to lower his head. This is just another example of the NFL owners not being able to get out of their own way. I guess what they're saying is a defender has to stay tall to make a tackle. It's so stupid and going to confuse the refs even more than they're already confused.

...it's is safer for a tackler to go in with his head up than to lead with his head .The rule will keep both players safe .

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

...it's is safer for a tackler to go in with his head up than to lead with his head .The rule will keep both players safe .

Agreed.
Good tackling technique is bend your knees to go down but keep your upper body straight up.
Doesn't the NFL have a youth coaching program called "Heads up football"?

Ryan Shazier injured his spine because he lowered his head. I like this rule. I don't like watching guys get concussed, football is way richer than that.

Envoyé de mon SM-J320FN en utilisant Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

The real interesting part of lowering the head rule will be the first time it's called on a qb running a sneak into the line for 1 yard.

[skinsfaninok]

Heads up football doesn't mean "NO HITTING" like many fans are saying, yes some plays are hard to call while live action is going on and defenders are in a tough spot but the whole "The nfl wants to take hitting away" is just false.