Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NFL 2023-24. Now without Dan Snyder!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by Bronco View Post
    Cousins to Falcons for four years 180M.
    Holy hell. I'm not even mad. Like, that's way way more than I would have paid.

    Leave a comment:


  • rufus
    replied
    Quarterbacks are getting pricey though. Hell, Gardner Minshew's gonna get $12.5/per.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by Bronco View Post
    Cousins to Falcons for four years 180M.
    Never really understood the appeal to pay him so much. He's a really good QB, sure. But not great. And certainly not one of the top 5.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScoobyDoo
    replied
    Cousins turned out to be drip slime after all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Proud2baLaker
    replied
    Wilson will sign with Steelers for veteran min of $1.2 million. He still has $37.8 million coming from the Broncos.

    Saquan Barkley to the Eagles

    Jacobs to the Packers with Jones being released

    Leave a comment:


  • Bronco
    replied
    Cousins to Falcons for four years 180M.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by MissThundercat View Post
    Broncos cut Russ, will absorb $85M cap hit.
    They also have to pay him for not playing. Or pay him if he signs with another team. Imagine playing a player so much money to NOT be on the team.

    Leave a comment:


  • MissThundercat
    replied
    Broncos cut Russ, will absorb $85M cap hit.

    Leave a comment:


  • walrus
    replied
    KC parade, gun shots, people hit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
    The only reason I can really come up with that might justify SF's decision is the fact that it gives their D some time to rest. KC spent the last two minutes in a hurry up offense (at the end of a tough game), and the SF defense was hanging on to try to keep KC from doing nothing more than tying it up. If there had been another 30 seconds left in the fourth quarter, there is little doubt in my mind that KC would have scored the go ahead touchdown then.

    By taking the ball, and especially by driving it basically 50 or 60 yards over 7+ minutes of game time, they gave their D one last chance to rest up before facing a KC offense that had suddenly seemed to find its groove.
    This. From what I read, SF was concerned their defense was pooped. So, they figured KC was guaranteed to score a TD if their defense didn't get any kind of rest. This way, maybe they could hold them and get that third sudden death possession.

    The real debate should be SF's play calling in the last two minutes. If they get a first down after the two-minute warning, the game is essentially over, despite KC's two timeouts. KC could not stop SF's run, so what does SF do most of that late 4th qtr. drive? Pass. That is what people should be debating.

    Leave a comment:


  • bronconick
    replied


    Leave a comment:


  • Jimjamesak
    replied
    All this discussion about the OT and we’re not discussing what is clearly the most important issue from the Super Bowl: Travis Kelce and his display of aggressive behavior by going after Andy Reid. Clearly he has aggression and mental health issues and needs to be suspended for a season and forced into counseling. It’s time to start addressing aggressive behaviors in men seriously!*

    * Actual take seen on the internet.

    (/s for those who can’t see it)

    Leave a comment:


  • SJHovey
    replied
    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...per-bowl-rules

    The more I think about it, I think it was a big mistake for SF to take the ball in OT. When you take the ball, you have to play regular (3-down) football, while KC got to play 4-down ball. No matter how much confidence you have in your offense, they can’t win the game for you on the first drive, the other team will always get the chance to tie it up or win.

    Put another way, if you have the ball first, you have to go for a touchdown, 100% of the time. If you take the ball second, you only have to go for the touchdown the percentage of the time that the first team scored one - it’s just much easier to execute when you have certainty about whether you need the touchdown or just a field goal.
    The other thing is that if you kick off, you immediately start with a territorial advantage. The receiving team likely has to drive the ball about 40 yards to even get into field goal range. If the kicking team holds without a first down, they might only need half or two thirds of that.

    The only reason I can really come up with that might justify SF's decision is the fact that it gives their D some time to rest. KC spent the last two minutes in a hurry up offense (at the end of a tough game), and the SF defense was hanging on to try to keep KC from doing nothing more than tying it up. If there had been another 30 seconds left in the fourth quarter, there is little doubt in my mind that KC would have scored the go ahead touchdown then.

    By taking the ball, and especially by driving it basically 50 or 60 yards over 7+ minutes of game time, they gave their D one last chance to rest up before facing a KC offense that had suddenly seemed to find its groove.

    Leave a comment:


  • MichVandal
    replied
    Originally posted by French Rage View Post

    I mean, that's assuming the second team can magically will itself to get the TD, which is by no means a given. Granted, with KC it's more likely than other teams, given their recent history. I think I read something saying Shanahan was looking to being the team with the 3rd possession, since it's sudden death at that point, and hoping they could hold serve with the first two possessions; which kinda makes sense, but also makes some pretty strong assumptions about how the first two possessions go.
    The one note that changes things is that the 2nd team always plays the 4 downs w/o punting. And that changes the play calling for the 2nd team. Like that 4th and short, maybe they punt instead of having to go for it. Which also changed 3rd down since you can come up short instead of forcing a first down play.

    Leave a comment:


  • French Rage
    replied
    Originally posted by LynahFan View Post
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...per-bowl-rules

    The more I think about it, I think it was a big mistake for SF to take the ball in OT. When you take the ball, you have to play regular (3-down) football, while KC got to play 4-down ball. No matter how much confidence you have in your offense, they can’t win the game for you on the first drive, the other team will always get the chance to tie it up or win.

    Put another way, if you have the ball first, you have to go for a touchdown, 100% of the time. If you take the ball second, you only have to go for the touchdown the percentage of the time that the first team scored one - it’s just much easier to execute when you have certainty about whether you need the touchdown or just a field goal.
    I mean, that's assuming the second team can magically will itself to get the TD, which is by no means a given. Granted, with KC it's more likely than other teams, given their recent history. I think I read something saying Shanahan was looking to being the team with the 3rd possession, since it's sudden death at that point, and hoping they could hold serve with the first two possessions; which kinda makes sense, but also makes some pretty strong assumptions about how the first two possessions go.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X