NFL Off Topic

**SPTO** · 01-19-2016, 05:21 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by slickdtc

Nice to see my eyes didn't deceive me; Corey Graham don't miss tackles!

If you go by what Bills fans say on social media he misses a ton. Glad to see that he is the opposite of that.

I bet Sammy will get the best deep threat accolades next season.

**Chip Douglass** · 01-19-2016, 05:26 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Interviewing to Become an NFL Head Coach

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/19/nfl-head-coach-interviews-the-mmqb-jenny-vrentas

Before their introductory press conferences, NFL head coaches endure a grueling hiring process. Here’s what goes on behind closed doors

Interesting read on SI about the head coach hiring process. Fair to say I'm not really encouraged.

Heavy emphasis on chemistry/clubhouse skills and virtually none on game-time decision-making/strategy (go for it here? punt here?). I know for a fact prospective baseball managers are asked to go through game-time simulations. Goes a long way in explaining why so many NFL head coaches make as many poor decisions as they do.

**SPTO** · 01-19-2016, 05:30 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by Chip Douglass

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/19/n...-jenny-vrentas

Interesting read on SI about the head coach hiring process. Fair to say I'm not really encouraged.

Heavy emphasis on chemistry/clubhouse skills and virtually none on game-time decision-making/strategy (go for it here? punt here?). I know for a fact prospective baseball managers are asked to go through game-time simulations. Goes a long way in explaining why so many NFL head coaches make as many poor decisions as they do.

I think chemistry and getting along with players should definitely be a factor in the hiring process but if that's the main focus than no wonder there's so much turnover. If it's up to me it should be 60/40 strategic/game planning vs chemistry with players.

**slickdtc** · 01-19-2016, 05:40 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'd love to see that flipped around: which team executives/owners have their stuff together, especially if you're meeting with upwards of 9 teams in the last year like Gase has.

We know some owners are very hands on and have made questionable hires, SF hiring Tomsula for example. Which teams are progressive, analytic based? Whose still going largely by the eye test?

**Sportsforever** · 01-19-2016, 05:41 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Is there anything that Brett Favre doesn't/won't endorse? I think he's giving Manning a run for the number of commercials he's in...

**redsox4evur** · 01-19-2016, 05:42 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by Sportsforever

Is there anything that Brett Favre doesn't/won't endorse? I think he's giving Manning a run for the number of commercials he's in...

What has he done besides Wrangler, Copper Fit and that razor? Also how else is he supposed to make money.

**Sportsforever** · 01-19-2016, 05:44 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by redsox4evur

What has he done besides Wrangler, Copper Fit and that razor? Also how else is he supposed to make money.

I have no idea...I just see him on commercials in the back ground a lot. Just saw him on for some fit bit monitor of some sort...

As for making money, I would hope a guy who made as much money as he did for 20 years doesn't NEED to work another day in his life.

**ImTellinTim** · 01-19-2016, 05:44 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by Sportsforever

Is there anything that Brett Favre doesn't/won't endorse? I think he's giving Manning a run for the number of commercials he's in...

I have to say, if people kept coming to me saying, "We will pay you $X to smile and talk about our product", my answer almost every time would be, "Where's the camera?"

**Chip Douglass** · 01-19-2016, 05:45 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by SPTO

I think chemistry and getting along with players should definitely be a factor in the hiring process but if that's the main focus than no wonder there's so much turnover. If it's up to me it should be 60/40 strategic/game planning vs chemistry with players.

Yes, I'd like to think that 15-20% of the league's coaches getting fired every year might indicate to owners/GMs that they might want to settle on a new head coach hiring process.

Leadership skills and managing the locker room are definitely important. So is making good decisions on the field that maximizes my team's chances of winning football games. Per the article, there's not even a hint that coaches are being hired on that basis.

**LambertandHam** · 01-19-2016, 05:49 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Was reading a tough article about former Steeler Antwan Randel El and his struggles post football. The man is only 36, yet has trouble with memory and even walking down the stairs by himself...

**kehlis** · 01-19-2016, 06:15 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

If there was a change to OT and I don't want one the only change I would want is what determines who gets the ball to start the OT.

I would be with pretty much any alternative (home team, team that last held the lead, continuation of fourth quarter etc...)

**wwharton** · 01-19-2016, 06:23 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by kehlis

If there was a change to OT and I don't want one the only change I would want is what determines who gets the ball to start the OT.

I would be with pretty much any alternative (home team, team that last held the lead, continuation of fourth quarter etc...)

I'd be okay with this... and actually after thinking it through, I'd be okay with any of the above being able to choose.

**slickdtc** · 01-19-2016, 06:26 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

I don't understand where teams get off thinking they deserve a possession in OT. Though I would favor a change to the way possession is decided. Continuation of possession is my favorite.

I've grown fond of the FG not winning a game as it's made teams play for the W at least a bit more. But if you allow a TD, why do you think you deserve a chance to retaliate? It mostly makes me mad because OMG waaahhh Aaron Rodgers didn't get a chance to touch the ball two straight postseasons. That's his defense's fault, especially this year.

If they change it, and it will be largely because of that, it'll be another slap in the face of defenses. No word on investing more in your defense, just a participation award to the team who wasn't good enough to make a stop.

**mestevo** · 01-19-2016, 06:53 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

That doesn't really add up, since both defenses would then have a chance also. Doesn't discourage investment in defense at all, lol.

Not in favor of just continuing the drive in OT. Guts the sense of urgency in the last 2 minutes in many circumstances, end of regulation just becomes a free timeout if you're at the edge of fg range or further.

Packers blew it, I don't think blown coverage should really move this debate very far

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

**wwharton** · 01-19-2016, 07:08 PM

Re: NFL Off Topic

Originally posted by mestevo

That doesn't really add up, since both defenses would then have a chance also. Doesn't discourage investment in defense at all, lol.

Not in favor of just continuing the drive in OT. Guts the sense of urgency in the last 2 minutes in many circumstances, end of regulation just becomes a free timeout if you're at the edge of fg range or further.

Packers blew it, I don't think blown coverage should really move this debate very far

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I agree, continuing the drive into OT seems like a REALLY bad idea.

Not really sure I understand your first point though.

Bottom line, like you I think, it seems pretty stupid to continue acting like QBs are the only players on a team that matter. The Packers did play in OT. Just because Rodgers didn't doesn't mean the rules need changing.

NFL Off Topic

Recommended Videos

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment