vike daddy Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 Panthers defensive end Julius Peppers put pen to paper today on a contract that puts him over an impressive career threshold. Peppers has made $159 million in his career, and he’ll be over $160 million in career earnings this season. He’s the highest-paid non-quarterback in NFL history. Among the highest-paid players in NFL history, only Peppers and Larry Fitzgerald($151 million) have made it into the Top 15 playing any position other than quarterback. The highest-paid player in NFL history is Peyton Manning, at $249 million. His brother Eli Manning is second at $219 million, Tom Brady is third at $197 million, Drew Brees is fourth at $194 million and Philip Rivers is fifth at $187 million. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/14/julius-peppers-set-to-become-only-defensive-player-with-160-million-in-career-earnings/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perrynoid Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 13 hours ago, gopherwrestler said: I mean.... they have two decent guards already.... But Nelson is a generational talent, I'd take him as a major upgrade and at worst, trade one of the other guards (to us ha ha!) or just keep them as a back-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 Not all “generational” talents are created equal. A “generational” guard isn’t going to do much for you when you’ve already got two very good/great guards on the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vike daddy Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 Two days into the league year, it’s already clear that at least a dozen NFL teams will be starting a different quarterback in Week One of 2018 than in Week One of 2017. Two other teams currently have questions about their Week One starter, and that’s before any surprises in the draft, or injuries in the preseason. Assuming we do have some surprises in the coming months, it’s easy to see half of the teams in the NFL beginning the 2018 season with a different starting quarterback than they had in the beginning of the 2017 season. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/16/half-the-nfl-could-have-a-different-week-one-starting-quarterback-in-2018/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Quote The NFL's competition committee is expected to propose a new catch rule that would eliminate the distinction for players going to the ground and reinforce a high standard for overturning calls via replay, league executive vice president Troy Vincent confirmed Tuesday to the Washington Post. The requirements for a catch, under the committee's likely proposal, will include the receiver controlling the ball and establishing himself in bounds. There will also be instruction for officials to define a time element, but it will apply both to receivers who are standing and those who are falling during the process of the catch. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22844480/nfl-vp-troy-vincent-confirms-changes-nfl-catch-rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klomp Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 So the Jessie James play would still be a catch. Dez Bryant would be a catch. I think this would eliminate the "complete the process" part of the rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpMc Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Honestly, if they have two feet down, in bounds, and the ball it should be a catch - I wouldn't even mind seeing those bang-bang plays where the ball pops out immediately at the catch being ruled fumbles. Make the game more interesting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I never had a problem with the rule of maintaining control through the process of the catch. My only issue was with what the NFL considered a “football move”. I would have left the rule and simply further defined control/possession as any manipulation of the football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpMc Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I've never liked the maintaining control to the ground in the end zone/out of bounds. If the ground can't cause a fumble, to me it makes sense for it to not be able cause an incompletion. That's just me though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) This is just too good not to share Edited March 20, 2018 by SemperFeist 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherwrestler Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 FWIW, Honey Badger isn’t the player he was. I stated that earlier. Wouldn’t have paid him the amount of money he got. I still wanted him tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 5 hours ago, rpmwr19 said: I've never liked the maintaining control to the ground in the end zone/out of bounds. If the ground can't cause a fumble, to me it makes sense for it to not be able cause an incompletion. That's just me though. But there should be something that indicates possession. Even if it’s something as simple as moving the ball to put it away. IMO, any type of manipulation of the football while it’s in the receiver’s hands would indicate control, therefor possession, of the football. So, if a receiver went up for a ball and tucked it away before hitting the ground, that would show possession, IMO. And at the same time, if the ball pops loose when the receiver hits the ground, before any defender makes contact with the receiver, I would consider that a fumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdallr Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: But there should be something that indicates possession. Even if it’s something as simple as moving the ball to put it away. IMO, any type of manipulation of the football while it’s in the receiver’s hands would indicate control, therefor possession, of the football. So, if a receiver went up for a ball and tucked it away before hitting the ground, that would show possession, IMO. And at the same time, if the ball pops loose when the receiver hits the ground, before any defender makes contact with the receiver, I would consider that a fumble. If a WR catches the ball on the sideline and gets both feet in, but doesn't bring the ball into their body (thereby indicating control) until they are out of bounds, is that a catch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 23 minutes ago, Heimdallr said: If a WR catches the ball on the sideline and gets both feet in, but doesn't bring the ball into their body (thereby indicating control) until they are out of bounds, is that a catch? If the ball never moves, yes. That wouldn’t be any different than how the current rule is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.