Leader Posted January 8, 2020 Author Share Posted January 8, 2020 It's Carolina north.............. The Redskins are hiring Ken Zampese as QBs coach, John Matsko as OL coach, Jim Hostler as WRs coach, and Pete Hoener as TEs coach. Three of the four were on Ron Rivers’ staff in Carolina. Offensive side coming together for Skins with Scott Turner as coordinator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 9, 2020 Author Share Posted January 9, 2020 PFT - NFL games were 41 of the 50 most-watched TV broadcasts of 2019. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 1 hour ago, Leader said: PFT - NFL games were 41 of the 50 most-watched TV broadcasts of 2019. The other 9 were Big Bang Theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 16 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said: Sanders is a grizzled vet that can still play at a high level. That kind of presence has done wonders for that team. Shouldn't surprise you that Jimmy's numbers are up as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green19 Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 16 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said: Funny thing is 49ers wanted Sanu. Wonder how different it would be if Patriots got Sanders and 49ers got Sanu. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 10, 2020 Author Share Posted January 10, 2020 Interesting (if McDaniels splits for CLE) to consider how many coaches NE has lost over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinneasGage Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 On 1/8/2020 at 8:42 PM, Norm said: The other 9 were Big Bang Theory jesus christ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, FinneasGage said: jesus christ I mean, it's probably true 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinneasGage Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, Norm said: I mean, it's probably true lol took me like 10 seconds to figure that out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 This Seattle offensive line is not great by any stretch. Brown, Iupati, and Fant haven't practiced yet this week also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 On 1/6/2020 at 5:49 PM, Norm said: I thought I was far out, I don't see that. But it could. It should. Nobody in the NFL is smart enough and they're too scared of the word gimmick or a play failing that looks different even though plays obviously don't all have huge success rates. ****ty teams who would win 5 games could probably win extra running the option with nobodies off the street at QB but nobody will do it because you get fired because "you ran the option." But a generic offense would win you less but a higher chance of keeping your job for using it. I remember about 30 yrs ago Bill Walsh was talking about how single wing blocking schemes would chew up modern defenses, but no one will do that. But there are enough guys out there like Taysom Hill, Kaepernick, Jalen Hurts who could populate a backfield with pass/run/catch threats and totally baffle defenses. Or not, but at least it would be interesting....like Arizona this year - did they win? Not so much, but the story was interesting. I also read an enlightening article about an analytics guy who is also a world class backgammon player (this is apparently an actual thing); he said when playing backgammon, he will use whatever strategy maximizes his chance of winning. When he started working in the NFL, he was flabbergasted that NFL teams - the highest level, the most competitive of the most competitive, where "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" - were EXTREMELY concerned about controlling the margin of victory, so often they would disregard the options that give them a better chance at a win in order to be safe and not lose too badly (I think going for it on 4th down is a good example - going for it on EVERY 4th down is the correct decision to maximize win pct, but most people realise that it isn't tenable; but teams will only go for it every so often, when it's either favourable or desperate, because if you have a bad game and keep blowing 4th downs, you're going to get destroyed on the scoreboard, even if it helps you out in the long run). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Mr Bad Example said: I remember about 30 yrs ago Bill Walsh was talking about how single wing blocking schemes would chew up modern defenses, but no one will do that. But there are enough guys out there like Taysom Hill, Kaepernick, Jalen Hurts who could populate a backfield with pass/run/catch threats and totally baffle defenses. Or not, but at least it would be interesting....like Arizona this year - did they win? Not so much, but the story was interesting. I also read an enlightening article about an analytics guy who is also a world class backgammon player (this is apparently an actual thing); he said when playing backgammon, he will use whatever strategy maximizes his chance of winning. When he started working in the NFL, he was flabbergasted that NFL teams - the highest level, the most competitive of the most competitive, where "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" - were EXTREMELY concerned about controlling the margin of victory, so often they would disregard the options that give them a better chance at a win in order to be safe and not lose too badly (I think going for it on 4th down is a good example - going for it on EVERY 4th down is the correct decision to maximize win pct, but most people realise that it isn't tenable; but teams will only go for it every so often, when it's either favourable or desperate, because if you have a bad game and keep blowing 4th downs, you're going to get destroyed on the scoreboard, even if it helps you out in the long run). Going for it on every 4th down is most definitely not the correct decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 On 1/8/2020 at 9:29 AM, Mr. Fussnputz said: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I were superstitious, I would say you all are dooming yourselves by taking too narrow a view of beauty. All of your "beauty" avatars are of women (not surprising given who you all are) but there is also great beauty in a sunset, a mountain range, a child's smile, a beach, a misty shoreline, etc. You will lose because you are not covering beauty completely enough! Me? i'll stick with planning, preparation, and talent. bla bla bla. Not beauty we are doing pretty. Just having a little fun what's wrong with that? geez some of you guys need to lighten up. Maybe I'll go back to my ugly dog wearing a cheese hat would that make you feel better? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Going for it on every 4th down is most definitely not the correct decision. There is a large area between every and never. I think you would side with being on the opponent's side between 50 and the 30 and 4th down less that 3 yards, going for it should be the play 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.