NFL News & Notes

[Mazrimiv]

3 hours ago, Old Guy said:

Hate this idea with a white-hot passion. They've done enough to help the offenses out over the last 3 decades. You have the 1st down portion of it right. Just rewarding a team for a bad play by giving it back to the offense. 

Say they fumble at the five and it's a loose ball, the defender can't get to it to recover it cleanly but can bat it the endzone out of bounds. 

STOP trying to turn this into the NBA after the 3-point shot. It's bad for football. In the NBA players play both ways. They have to give the defense the benefit of the doubt in some situations. BTW, the NBA is so hard to watch with the way they play basketball anymore. Just a bad, bad product, so is college basketball now. 

There is no forethought to this stupid idea. 

I honestly have no idea how this is what you took away from what I posted.

[Old Guy]

13 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

I honestly have no idea how this is what you took away from what I posted.

Was your post regarding the NFL talking about changing the rule where if the offense fumbles the ball into the endzone and it goes out of bounds, the offense will retain possession? 

That is a ****ty idea. 

[Mazrimiv]

[Norm]

A guy on the radio years ago nailed it, imo. If the rule was ALWAYS that you kept the ball but went back to the twenty and they wanted to change it to you lose possession, people wouldn't be near in favor of it like they are now.

I also don't want to do it to help the offense. I just think it's a stupid rule. It doesn't happen that much anyways to alter offensive output in any meaningful way.

[KManX89]

2 hours ago, Reaper said:

I hope if MLF makes a change it’s for someone who plays a more attacking style of D. I don’t recall what Staley did in his one year as far as scheme goes but his defense was incredible.

But you gotta remember he ran a loaded Rams D in his only year as DC and the also-loaded Chargers D didn’t look so hot when he was asked to run both this year. 🤷‍♂️

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Old Guy said:

Was your post regarding the NFL talking about changing the rule where if the offense fumbles the ball into the endzone and it goes out of bounds, the offense will retain possession? 

That is a ****ty idea. 

Nope. It's the only reasonable idea, actually.

If the best argument against is "there are a bunch of other, unrelated rules, that I think favor the offense" you know there's no good reason why the defense should get possession. 

Probably the least logical rule in the rule book and long overdue to fix.

[incognito_man]

23 minutes ago, Norm said:

A guy on the radio years ago nailed it, imo. If the rule was ALWAYS that you kept the ball but went back to the twenty and they wanted to change it to you lose possession, people wouldn't be near in favor of it like they are now.

I also don't want to do it to help the offense. I just think it's a stupid rule. It doesn't happen that much anyways to alter offensive output in any meaningful way.

There's no logical reason the offense should suffer any penalty whatsoever. Ball should just be placed back at the spot of the fumble. 

In baseball, if you hit a foul ball "home run" should the defense score "a point"? Of course not, it's nonsense. Just like this rule.

[thrILL!]

6 hours ago, Old Guy said:

BTW, the NBA is so hard to watch with the way they play basketball anymore. Just a bad, bad product, so is college basketball now. 

Say you can’t shoot a 3 to save your life without saying you can’t shoot a 3 to save your life. 

[Norm]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

There's no logical reason the offense should suffer any penalty whatsoever. Ball should just be placed back at the spot of the fumble. 

In baseball, if you hit a foul ball "home run" should the defense score "a point"? Of course not, it's nonsense. Just like this rule.

It's totally illogical and I have no idea why it was this way in the first place. 

The idea "omg you shouldn't fumble down there" is stupid. You shouldn't fumble at your own one either. If it goes out the other team doesn't get the ball.

It's a stupid rule. People only like it because it's always existed

[Old Guy]

1 hour ago, thrILL! said:

Say you can’t shoot a 3 to save your life without saying you can’t shoot a 3 to save your life. 

Nope, played in college and was a point guard with plenty of range. The only game I played with a 3- point line in college was a senior all-star game. Made 7-8 threes. It was fun but it was an exhibition game. Nobody played any D anyway in that game.

The 3-point shot ruined basketball. Just like everybody trying to hit a 3-run home run with nobody on base ruined baseball.

It took all the nuances out of the game. So many fundamentals are lost in today's game, it's sad.

The NCAA tournament used to be the best sports on TV, sans The Masters. It's just not that good anymore. 

[thrILL!]

3 hours ago, Old Guy said:

The 3-point shot ruined basketball.

Highly disagree here.  Watching players like Steph Curry consistently hit 25+ footers is a work of art.  Much more enjoyable than oafy big men clogging up the paint. 

[Old Guy]

9 minutes ago, thrILL! said:

Highly disagree here.  Watching players like Steph Curry consistently hit 25+ footers is a work of art.  Much more enjoyable than oafy big men clogging up the paint. 

We will have to agree to disagree. 

[ThatJerkDave]

3 hours ago, thrILL! said:

Highly disagree here.  Watching players like Steph Curry consistently hit 25+ footers is a work of art.  Much more enjoyable than oafy big men clogging up the paint. 

I see it both sides.  Watching Curry shoot threes is great.  Watching every kid now trying to shoot 40 foot shots because Curry does it is ******* brutal.  I don't miss the days of every team having some 6'10-7'2 goon on the squad leaning into the basket either.  But I think there is a balance to be had.  Get some post play too.  

Also, call traveling.  And give out technical fouls for flopping.  I would also like them to stop calling fouls when it is obvious that the offensive player's only plan is to draw a foul.  

[mikebpackfan]

7 hours ago, Norm said:

It's totally illogical and I have no idea why it was this way in the first place. 

The idea "omg you shouldn't fumble down there" is stupid. You shouldn't fumble at your own one either. If it goes out the other team doesn't get the ball.

It's a stupid rule. People only like it because it's always existed

The only reason the offense gets the football in other cases is because it has always been that way. It’s dumb. The defense should always get the ball.  Everything is consistent and you don’t have to make up some ridiculous rules for it going into the EZ or not.  Ball goes out, defense gets it. Just like basketball and soccer and just about any other sport.  

[Mazrimiv]

6 hours ago, mikebpackfan said:

The only reason the offense gets the football in other cases is because it has always been that way. It’s dumb. The defense should always get the ball.  Everything is consistent and you don’t have to make up some ridiculous rules for it going into the EZ or not.  Ball goes out, defense gets it. Just like basketball and soccer and just about any other sport.  

Basketball and soccer is about last touch, not possession.  Not the same at all.

If the current rule was modified to give the defense possession where the EZ fumble actually occurred rather than moving the ball to the 20, that would be an improvement. It's the moving the ball to the 20 that doesn't make sense to me.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Mazrimiv