mse326

I pretty lenient with threads around here but come on. This isn't what this subforum is for mse

Marshawn Lloyd is going to be intresting. 4.44 at 5'8" 220? That is pretty insane. But he never actually looked it on tape and the explosion isn't there in the jumps. Should be that bowling ball like MJD but just looks blah

The comparing of Slater and Hester is absurd. I think it's fair to question if Hester should be in (I think he does similar to punters and kickers) but he is far more valuable than Slater. No one changes their gameplan around a special teams gunner. Teams literally would change the way they punt against Hester so even if it was unreturnable it was frequently 10+ yards better field position, because of angle or hang time, than what a normal punt would be.

So they don't quite fit the bill but I think the 1991 would still sort of fit. #1 defense against the run and pass. Offense was not good and a turnover machine because of an early injury by pre season MVP candidate Randall Cunningham. They ultimately were still 10-6 but 3rd in their division. But If Cunningham was healthy them vs the 1991 Redskins would have been epic

Here's a Twitter post from 2022 when the new rule was first announced, so no emotion bias based on this game And here is a pretty comprehensive ESPN article. Not saying this is all right, but it definitely explores all the arguments and leans towards stats over intuition https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39541332/49ers-chiefs-super-bowl-2024-decision-coin-toss-kyle-shanahan-mistake

It comes from the results we saw under the pure sudden death OT. The team that got the ball 1st win 60% of the time. That isn't necessarilly on the opening drive

I disagree. We simply won't see it from a corner. It will have to be a ball hawking safety with incredible speed and instincts to jump routes and make up ground on deep balls QBs think they are throwing into single CB coverage for a jump ball

There is a slight advantage, hence why I said I'd lean deferring (by which I meant taking the ball 2nd). But in poker you don't lose the advantage if you don't capitalize on it. Here not only do you lose the advantage, the other team gets the advantage if you can't end it on your possession. If I wasn't someone who pretty strongly believes in going for 2 to end, which I am, then I'd probably take the ball first, because if you aren't committed to doing that there is a massive risk if giving the advantage to the other team instead.

I don't think there is an objective right answer here. It is all about how you frame it in your mind. But it is perfectly reasonable to say A) I trust my offense to score the TD and/or B) I trust the defense to hold them to where we don't lose. And then the sudden death does come into play. And bringing up going for 2 if you take the ball second is all well and good but we know most coaches won't do that. The reality is either choice is perfectly justifiable. This forum, and I am part of it, tends to be more aggressive than NFL coaches in matters like 4th down and 2pt conversions. That would tilt towards deferring. But I don't think it is objectively wrong to take the ball.

3 seconds left IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF OT. Doesn't really have a hollywood ring to it

Just end of quarter. There was no time issue

1. BB shouldn't be discredited for having Brady 2. Reid still had a lot of success with McNabb in Philly. Just not the final hump

Possibly. The Chiefs aren't kicking the FG at the end of the 4th if they are down 4

No he wasn't. They were getting outplayed in the trenches, it makes it kind of hard for playes to succeed He made the adjustments needed so by the end of the game they were able to move the ball hence taking the lead, then getting the tie, then getting the win. The only thing I can criticize him at all for is that his timing was off on the last drive of the 1st half, specifically after the Mahomes 2 yard run. He had to get them to spike or take the TO

I get it. With both guaranteed a possession you are trying to balance the knowing what you need vs being the first to have the ball in sudden death. I don't have a problem taking the ball and trusting you offense to make the first moot.

Was there any doubt

I hate that rule, but you have to know it if you are MVS

How do you not review that?

McDuffie? No real signature play, but has shut down that side of the field

What are you doing??????? EDIT: I am wrong but he has to fall on it not try to pick it up

83 was in the area. Far closer than many that are said

wrist flick for 50+ yards on the money

There is a lot of recency bias, or should I say SB Era bias. I'm from Philly and hate the Giants even though I'm a Texans fan (Eagles are my NFC support team), they are undoubtedly a top 3. Been there since the beginning and have consistently performed. There is no argument for the Steelers or 49ers over them unless you only consider SB Era, and even then it is closer then people think. If you are only considering SB Era there is no case for the Bears, and I'd even dispute the Patriots who had an absurdly long dynasty but I think a legacy requires there to be success that spans more than 1 QB.

I'd prefer a 1st rounder next year. We actually did a pretty good job getting servicable bodies on the team very quickly. We need playmakers more than depth bodies. So I think our 1st this year is more valuable to us than adding the extra pick, so if we do trade it it needs to be for what we'd expect to be a top 15 pick next year

No. He isn't the best coordinator ever and there are no coaches in there for being a great coordinator. I'd be fine if we started electing excellent coordinators, but I wouldn't start with Spags