NFL 2020 Season Thread

[bob]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Mahomes was clearly concussed, but I can’t see where the major impact was... it was a strange one

[Harrison] A source has told me “Patrick passed all of his tests last night. He didn’t actually hit his head, there was a nerve in his neck that got tweaked that made him out of it. He’s getting testing done on his neck/nerve today but did clear all tests last night.”

[JPhillips]

That sounds fishy as fuck.

[tarcone]

That would be known as a stinger. Been around for years.

[JPhillips]

I'm saying that a stinger doesn't make one wobbly and dizzy. They don't want to call it a concussion because then he can't practice/play.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Agreed 100% with this. You don’t like it, hang on to the ball. That’s the rule change I’d support, not the other way around.

Why not make all fumbles anywhere on the field go to the defense, whether they recover it or not? If you don't like it, hang on to the ball. Or we make all false starts result in a change of possession. If you don't like it, don't false start.

Or I could twist that absurd argument the other way. The defense doesn't get possession unless they recover the ball. If you don't like it, recover the ball.

[molson]

It always made sense to me to treat the end zones as unique parts of the field. You fumble out of bounds at the 5, you get it at the 5. You fumble out of bounds at the 1, you get it at the 1. You fumble out of bounds through the end zone....you also get it at the 1? Or it's like a reverse touchback and you get it back 1st and 10 at the 20? Either would be weird to me.

I remember one time reading about the history of the development of the rules and it kind of clicked why it evolved to be this way. It's a harsh penalty for doing it, but, the teams know the rules going in and players should be very reluctant to stretch the ball out in that situation when the worse case scenario is first and goal on the 1 if they just don't fumble through the end zone.

[21C]

I haven't heard it mentioned on any of the broadcasts or seen it on any sites but the Bucs are one win away from being the first team to play a Super Bowl in their home stadium.

[Long suffering Bucs fan since 1978]

[QuikSand]

I wonder if there has ever been a good and satisfying outcome arising from an argument that started with "well, if you don't like it..."

[QuikSand]

Why bother even thinking about any rule that might make a difference in a close game?

If you don't like it, just arrange to win every game by 40 points, and the bad rules won't bother you.

Solved.

[molson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I wonder if there has ever been a good and satisfying outcome arising from an argument that started with "well, if you don't like it..."

A team should probably make certain decisions based on the rules that actually exist in the game they're playing. There is high risk and questionable reward to stretching at the goal line in that circumstance (at least when the play results in a first down). I read somewhere that Bill Belichick forbids his players from doing that. A player knows the risk, takes the action anyway, inflicts the penalty on his team, it's hard to blame the rule.

Edit: You can extend that reasoning to the other side of the field. If getting tackled in their own end zone merely resulted in getting the ball back at their own 1, teams would run their offenses a lot different there.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Next week, I can't see the Bucs taking out the Packers, but I'd love to see Brady in the big game once again. Oh and anything but Andy Reid again.

That's an odd sentiment. It seems like it'd be easy not to want to see Brady in the Super Bowl yet again. But Reid has only won one once.

[QuikSand]

It's fine that there is, by rule, a pit of laser alligators along the sideline. Just tell your players not to go out of bounds and they won't be killed. No reason to change the rule at all.

I just don't find the argument that "well, you can adjust to the rule no matter whether it's good" compelling enough to conclude "therefore keep the bad rules."


My point is just that the rule is too stark. Seems simpler to me to say that the team possessing the football may not gain yardage by fumbling forward, period, no matter where they are on the field. If you fumble and nobody recovers, then you retain possession at the spot of the fumble. That would be a simple rule that would work at any point on the field, and completely avoid the massive cliff effect we have now at the goal line pylon.

I just don't see "reaching" as a crime appropriately punishable by a turnover at one specific place on the field. Just deny the obvious sneaky thing, and be done with it.

[Kodos]

Sounds good to me.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

A team should probably make certain decisions based on the rules that actually exist in the game they're playing. There is high risk and questionable reward to stretching at the goal line in that circumstance (at least when the play results in a first down). I read somewhere that Bill Belichick forbids his players from doing that. A player knows the risk, takes the action anyway, inflicts the penalty on his team, it's hard to blame the rule.

But how is this a response to whether this is a good rule or not? No one is saying the refs should've ignored the rule and awarded Cleveland the ball at the 1. We're talking about changing the rule for the future. Also, I've never reached out for the goal line and fumbled in a football game, so I'm not sure how that's a response to my argument.

Also, people keep looking at this as to how it affects the offensive player, and that we shouldn't make it easier. That's silly, because it's ignoring how easy the rule makes it for the defense. Everywhere else on the field they have to recover the ball to gain possession, except in the end zone where they can get the ball (and 20 yards) by doing nothing at all.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Everywhere else on the field they have to recover the ball to gain possession, except in the end zone where they can get the ball (and 20 yards) by doing nothing at all.

Not everywhere else on the field - it the ball goes out the back or the side of the other end zone, it's a safety, even if the defense did nothing to deserve it. The end zones are unique.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But how is this a response to whether this is a good rule or not?

It's a response to whether it's "too harsh" a penalty. That always assumes to me that the player couldn't have known the risk, especially combined with the idea that "if you don't like it, don't take that risk" isn't a legitimate argument. Late in a game, or on 4th down, it might be worth a risk. Most of a game, the end zones are nothing to fuck around with. It's where games are won and lost, it's where fuckups will cost you the most.

Touchback fumbles are a harsh result, more than safeties in most circumstances, but safeties can be pretty harsh too. Teams play differently to avoid that result. Maybe it would be nicer to put the ball back at the 1 if someone massively fucks up in their own end zone and the defense did nothing to deserve the fruits of that?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Kodos

That's an odd sentiment. It seems like it'd be easy not to want to see Brady in the Super Bowl yet again. But Reid has only won one once.

Yeah I don't know how we're already at the "UGH, ANDY REID" point after one SB win last year and another appearance 15 seasons prior to that.

[JPhillips]

Clearly, Buffalo is the right answer. Green Bay is acceptable. KC is out due to the no consecutive wins gaming rule. Tampa is out both for Brady and for getting there with one year FA acquisitions.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Not everywhere else on the field - it the ball goes out the back or the side of the other end zone, it's a safety, even if the defense did nothing to deserve it. The end zones are unique.

That's actually not unique, because it's the same thing that happens if the offense runs though the end zone themselves. The defense is rewarded by recovering the football in the end zone because they get a TD instead of a safety. On the other end, the defense gets it at the 20 if they recover it and gets it at the 20 if it goes out of bounds. That makes no sense.

It's a response to whether it's "too harsh" a penalty. That always assumes to me that the player couldn't have known the risk, especially combined with the idea that "if you don't like it, don't take that risk" isn't a legitimate argument. Late in a game, or on 4th down, it might be worth a risk. Most of a game, the end zones are nothing to fuck around with. It's where games are won and lost, it's where fuckups will cost you the most.

To me, it's not a legitimate argument in discussing whether it's a good rule or not. I think it's smart for Belichik to teach that to his players. Players should make solid decisions based on the rules that are in play at the time. That's completely separate from whether the rule is good or not. The rule was fairly applied to the Browns because they knew it going in. It shouldn't be in the rule in the future because it's too extreme a penalty and rewards the defense even if they don't recover the ball.

[Swaggs]

I can't bring myself to root for Brady, but it would be quite a murderers' row of Hall of Fame QBs he will have gone through (if KC makes it back to the SB) with , Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and then Mahomes.

[HomerSimpson98]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I can't bring myself to root for Brady, but it would be quite a murderers' row of Hall of Fame QBs he will have gone through (if KC makes it back to the SB) with , Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and then Mahomes.

Taylor Heinicke is offended by this post

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson98

Taylor Heinicke is offended by this post

That’s funny. I put “insert random WFT QB” in greater than/less than brackets and it came up blank. It must be some kind of code.

I, of course, meant future Hall-of-Farmer, Taylor Heinickie.

[larrymcg421]

Tua and the #3 for Deshaun Watson?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Tua and the #3 for Deshaun Watson?

I'd make that trade if I were either team.

[albionmoonlight]

Phil Rivers retires.

Reich and Wentz have a successful history together. I'm predicting Wentz to Indy this offseason.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Phil Rivers retires...

Might just be me, but it's ironic that both Rivers and Brees are retiring together

[albionmoonlight]

Turns out that San Diego would have been fine keeping either of them. Both turned out to be amazing QBs.

[Carman Bulldog]

I know Watson seems to be the big name QB who could potentially move and there is a lot of chatter over Wentz and Reich reuniting.

But for a minute, let's talk Matthew Stafford. I really feel that he can win a Super Bowl with the right team, environment, coaching staff, etc.

So two questions:
1. Where do you think the best fit for Stafford is?
2. Where does Stafford end up (including the possibility of remaining in Detroit)?

To me, the ideal places for him to land are either the Rams or the Saints, or potentially the 49ers. Add Pittsburgh to the list if Roethlisberger is done. For other possible destinations, maybe throw-in Washington and Indianapolis. I can't really see the Lions dealing him within the division to the Bears, but if the right offer is there, that might be a landing spot as well. I suppose the Patriots and the Broncos could be in the mix as well, but I don't think it's the best move for them (although that wouldn't preclude either from doing it).

I know that I've always been high on Stafford but I really think there are a lot of potential landing spots where he represents a significant upgrade at quarterback for a team that could be a contender next year.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'd make that trade if I were either team.

I’m a Dolphins far, but I think I agree with you - seems win win

[miami_fan]

This is the same guy who was the interim HC for the Dolphins? Six years? He has improved that much? Wow.

New Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell agrees to six-year contract, source says

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

This is the same guy who was the interim HC for the Dolphins? Six years? He has improved that much? Wow.

New Detroit Lions coach Dan Campbell agrees to six-year contract, source says

Yes. Yes, he has. Between he and new GM Brad Holmes a new era of Detroit Lions football is upon us. It's time to Restore The Roar! #ONEPRIDE!

[thesloppy]

It kinda blows my mind to think that the current Lions coach was on the Lions roster the season before Matt Stafford was drafted.

[albionmoonlight]

Dan Campbell got a lot of positive buzz from the local press (who were getting fed it, I am sure, by Sean Payton). There was a sense that he'd probably be the assistant most likely to leave for a HC spot.

[albionmoonlight]

H_B:

What are your thoughts on the Lions? Trade Stafford, collect assets, and go on a year or two rebuild? Or keep Stafford and try and build around his final stretch?

[thesloppy]

As a long time Lions slappy I will be supremely bummed if they part ways with Stafford & I hope he plays all his days as a Lion. History certainly suggests that the Lions are horrible at developing young QB prospects NOT named Matt Stafford, and I don't look forward to getting back into that process again, but history also suggests that the Lions are just as disconnected & disloyal to their best players as they are loyal to their worst coaches.

[Swaggs]

Looking at Stafford's career numbers, he seems like a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame if he is just puts up modest numbers (even ~20 TDs and 3,000 yards) for the next 4-5 years. That would put him in the top 10 for yards and TDs in a career, give or take depending on some of his contemporaries.

He and Matt Ryan somehow do not feel like Hall of Famers to me, but their numbers suggest otherwise.

[thesloppy]

Stafford is the same age (32) as Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, Nick Foles and Ryan Tannehill, but he was somehow drafted three full years before all those dudes.

[Ksyrup]

Stafford needs to be traded before he just gives up and retires too early like Sanders and Megatron.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Stafford is the same age (32) as Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, Nick Foles and Ryan Tannehill, but he was somehow drafted three full years before all those dudes.

That’s wild, and kinda changed my thinking on which QBs I’d be targeting this off-season if available.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Looking at Stafford's career numbers, he seems like a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame if he is just puts up modest numbers (even ~20 TDs and 3,000 yards) for the next 4-5 years. That would put him in the top 10 for yards and TDs in a career, give or take depending on some of his contemporaries.

He and Matt Ryan somehow do not feel like Hall of Famers to me, but there numbers suggest otherwise.

Yeah, I feel like at some point we need to adjust to these pinball numbers. A dozen QB put up 4,000 yards this season; it just doesn't mean anything anymore.

[Ksyrup]

Counterpoint to the "fumble thru the end zone" rule sucks argument:

NFL: Did a bad fumble rule hose the Browns? Not so fast

Seems the best argument is that when the ball is in the end zone, there are only 3 possible scenarios and no one thinks it is right or OK to make an exception for fumbles.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Counterpoint to the "fumble thru the end zone" rule sucks argument:

NFL: Did a bad fumble rule hose the Browns? Not so fast

Seems the best argument is that when the ball is in the end zone, there are only 3 possible scenarios and no one thinks it is right or OK to make an exception for fumbles.

This may be the worst take I've read on this. There is absolutely no reason that it has to be a touchdown, safety or touchback and why exceptions cannot be made around fumbles.

In fact, the NFL already has specific rules around fumbles made on 4th Down or fumbles made after the two minute warning. It's no more difficult to make an exception for a fumble into the end zone than it is to differentiate a fumble made at 2:01 in the 2nd Quarter compared to 1:59 in the 2nd Quarter.

Really, the easiest thing to do is to basically tweak the fumbled out of bounds rule as it currently is so that the spot of the next snap is the spot of the fumble. That makes more sense than having an extra rule about 1 inch making a difference between out of bounds or a touchback.

But even for those that think the offence should be penalized, why not make a new rule penalizing fumbling out of the end zone. Something like a 15-yard penalty from the spot of the fumble.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

This may be the worst take I've read on this. There is absolutely no reason that it has to be a touchdown, safety or touchback and why exceptions cannot be made around fumbles.

In fact, the NFL already has specific rules around fumbles made on 4th Down or fumbles made after the two minute warning. It's no more difficult to make an exception for a fumble into the end zone than it is to differentiate a fumble made at 2:01 in the 2nd Quarter compared to 1:59 in the 2nd Quarter.

Really, the easiest thing to do is to basically tweak the fumbled out of bounds rule as it currently is so that the spot of the next snap is the spot of the fumble. That makes more sense than having an extra rule about 1 inch making a difference between out of bounds or a touchback.

But even for those that think the offence should be penalized, why not make a new rule penalizing fumbling out of the end zone. Something like a 15-yard penalty from the spot of the fumble.

Other mentioned it earlier: I’d personally prefer any fumble out of bounds anywhere on the field to be a loss of possession.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Other mentioned it earlier: I’d personally prefer any fumble out of bounds anywhere on the field to be a loss of possession.

There was probably a time where I wouldn't have minded the rule being this way and the consistency that goes along with such an interpretation.

Unfortunately, every guy on the field now is running around like Peanut Tillman, throwing punches at the guy carrying the ball to try and knock it loose. I think it's bad enough as it presently is and such a rule would only serve to make it worse.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

H_B:

What are your thoughts on the Lions? Trade Stafford, collect assets, and go on a year or two rebuild? Or keep Stafford and try and build around his final stretch?

The Stafford question is a complicated one. On the one hand, he's the best Lions quarterback in the 40 years I've been watching the team. He's super tough. He loves to play. He's probably the most talented player on the team. Of all of the many, many issues this team faces - primarily on defense - QB is near the bottom in terms of a position that needs be addressed.

That being said, Stafford has been with the Lions for 12 years. He's never led them to a division title. He's never led them to a playoff win. The Lions have only been to the playoffs three times and were only competitive once against Dallas in 2014. Now, you can't blame all of this on Stafford. The team has had some bad GMs, bad coaches and not a ton of talent around him. Still, given his overall lack of success, not to mention his career winning percentage against winning teams (very bad), it's hard to believe that the Lions' ceiling with Stafford as QB is a wildcard team destined to lose its playoff game.

He's, also, 32 and has had injury problems the last few years.

As much as I like and respect Stafford, I don't think the Lions will ever be all that much with him at QB. I am not sure if now is the time to try and trade him and rebuild, but so long as he's the QB, the Lions will likely win enough games that they aren't able to draft a potential successor who could be as good or better than Stafford.

If they can re-sign Golladay, then him, Swift and Hockenson make up a pretty decent trio, along with Stafford, to have a decent offense. The defense is utter shambles. The Quinntricia era was a huge, painful step backwards for this already beleaguered franchise.

This is a lot of equivocating, I know. It's something I've thought a lot about the last few years. If, say, Justin Fields dropped to 7 this year, I would be fine with the Lions taking him and setting things up for the future. That could necessitate a move out of town for Stafford (his wife has been pretty vocal at times about a desire to move along) and, assuming the Lions got a decent return, I'm ok with that.

There are a lot of Stafford haters out there and supporters. I'm sort of in the middle. I acknowledge his talent, competitiveness, toughness and all of that, but it hasn't worked in 12 years and I have a hard time seeing it ever materialize with Stafford at QB.

[Honolulu_Blue]

“This place has been kicked, it’s been battered, it’s been bruised and I can give you coach-speak all day long, ‘Hey, we’re gonna win this many games.’ None of that matters and you don’t want to hear it anyway. You’ve had enough of that shit. Excuse my language. This team is going to take on the identity of this city. This city’s been down and it found a way to come up. It’s found a way to overcome adversity. . . . We’re gonna kick you in the teeth and when you punch us back, we’re going to smile at you. When you knock us down, we’re gonna get up and when we get up we’re going to bite a kneecap off.”

Your Detroit Lions new head coach, folks!

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

“This place has been kicked, it’s been battered, it’s been bruised and I can give you coach-speak all day long, ‘Hey, we’re gonna win this many games.’ None of that matters and you don’t want to hear it anyway. You’ve had enough of that shit. Excuse my language. This team is going to take on the identity of this city. This city’s been down and it found a way to come up. It’s found a way to overcome adversity. . . . We’re gonna kick you in the teeth and when you punch us back, we’re going to smile at you. When you knock us down, we’re gonna get up and when we get up we’re going to bite a kneecap off.”

Your Detroit Lions new head coach, folks!

code for run the ball like it's 1992 and lose a lot of games

[Coffee Warlord]

Bears keeping their Head Coach and GM, and ... losing like their entire coaching staff.

So far, DC retired, passing coordinator gone, RB coach reportedly leaving, and D-line coach gone.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

“This place has been kicked, it’s been battered, it’s been bruised and I can give you coach-speak all day long, ‘Hey, we’re gonna win this many games.’ None of that matters and you don’t want to hear it anyway. You’ve had enough of that shit. Excuse my language. This team is going to take on the identity of this city. This city’s been down and it found a way to come up. It’s found a way to overcome adversity. . . . We’re gonna kick you in the teeth and when you punch us back, we’re going to smile at you. When you knock us down, we’re gonna get up and when we get up we’re going to bite a kneecap off.”

Your Detroit Lions new head coach, folks!

Well that's better than the speech for every Lions season for the past 50 years:

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

“This place has been kicked, it’s been battered, it’s been bruised and I can give you coach-speak all day long, ‘Hey, we’re gonna win this many games.’ None of that matters and you don’t want to hear it anyway. You’ve had enough of that shit. Excuse my language. This team is going to take on the identity of this city. This city’s been down and it found a way to come up. It’s found a way to overcome adversity. . . . We’re gonna kick you in the teeth and when you punch us back, we’re going to smile at you. When you knock us down, we’re gonna get up and when we get up we’re going to bite a kneecap off.”

Your Detroit Lions new head coach, folks!

Ah yes, that is the Dan Campbell I remember from the Dolphins. I need him to conduct a masterclass on how to knock the job interview out of the park.

[thesloppy]

Matt Patricia is headed back to the New England Patriots, where he will assist the coaching staff in a “variety of roles"