NFL 2018-19

ToyYoda said:
I don't get all the Kirk Cousins hype either. I think he's a slightly better than average QB, and not worth nearly what the Vikes are going to pay him.
Click to expand...

The crazy part is that Cousins' contract has all three years fully guaranteed, which is nearly unheard of in the NFL. What are the actual odds he is the Vikings' starting QB in 2020?

AtomicPunk55 said:
Cousins is a good systems QB but for what he will cost I don't think he will be a significant upgrade for the Vikes. If the Broncos install a system suitable for Keenum he should be fine. Bradford will get hurt in training camp and start 4 games and Bridgewater won't move the needle for the Jets. JMO
Click to expand...

I think these are solid takes. It seems like the Broncos are maintaining more flexibility by signing Keenum for a couple years, and I'm assuming the second year isn't fully guaranteed in his case. That may be smart, because none of the QBs in this free agent class seem like franchise saviors.
 
I love days like this. I'm on Facebook (sporadically) going wow, wow, wow all day long, looking at these changes.

I mean Jordy Nelson???
 
The Pats lost Nate Solder.

Brady better prepare his body...

Also, Joe Thomas retired. Easily one of the best OL you will see play. A damn shame he wasted his career in Cleveland.
 
kkfan91 said:
Must know who they want and think he will be there at 3 but not 6
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure they have a QB in mind. Not so much an issue for Indy as long as Luck is healthy, and those are really good picks to help surround him with some quality depth.
 
kkfan91 said:
Must know who they want and think he will be there at 3 but not 6
Click to expand...
Yeah, even though they picked up Keenum, Denver is still talking about taking a QB at #5.
And with the Jets currently having one QB that's 57 years old and another QB that blows out his knee every time he sneezes, I guess they had to pull the trigger to get the guy they want.
 
Don't forget, Bradford got paid 20 million and a plastic knee with a force field, when someone gets close it collapses.
 
OMG, all these star players getting cut because they make too much money.. :eek:

When Matt Kenseth couldn't find a ride that paid $8 million, we were told that Nascar was on its deathbed. So does this mean the NFL is dying as well? Why do long-term contracts mean so little in the NFL?
 
LewTheShoe said:
OMG, all these star players getting cut because they make too much money.. :eek:

When Matt Kenseth couldn't find a ride that paid $8 million, we were told that Nascar was on its deathbed. So does this mean the NFL is dying as well? Why do long-term contracts mean so little in the NFL?
Click to expand...
Same reason, cheaper younger replacements
 
LewTheShoe said:
OMG, all these star players getting cut because they make too much money.. :eek:

When Matt Kenseth couldn't find a ride that paid $8 million, we were told that Nascar was on its deathbed. So does this mean the NFL is dying as well? Why do long-term contracts mean so little in the NFL?
Click to expand...

They aren't humans either, they are objectified ;)
 
The nice thing about the NFL is that you can cut players who are making too much or not doing the job and the nice thing for the players is they become free agents and can sign with another club. If they are not good enough they can resume normal life. The NFL is about results and I will leave it at that.
 
AtomicPunk55 said:
The nice thing about the NFL is that you can cut players who are making too much or not doing the job and the nice thing for the players is they become free agents and can sign with another club. If they are not good enough they can resume normal life. The NFL is about results and I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...
 
LewTheShoe said:
OMG, all these star players getting cut because they make too much money.. :eek:

When Matt Kenseth couldn't find a ride that paid $8 million, we were told that Nascar was on its deathbed. So does this mean the NFL is dying as well? Why do long-term contracts mean so little in the NFL?
Click to expand...
I'd be hesitant about most long-term signings outside of maybe the QB position. So many positions with a short shelf life that it just doesn't make sense to do it when you can put together shorter high-dollar deals. Some teams though just make questionable decisions. I thought Johnathan Hankins was on a really high-value deal but the Colts cut him because they're changing schemes...even though he's done well in the scheme they're going to. Didn't even bother to trade him. I don't get it.
 
I think Cousins is slightly better than advertised.

Lets not forget the wideouts in Jackson and Garcon were gone and replaced with an unproven duo in Pryor and Crowder... Not to mention a washed up Vernon Davis with rock-candy hands because of Reed being out (Pryor was on IR as well). He's going to have some upgrades in weaponry with Diggs, Thielen, Rudolph, and hopefully a fully-healthy Cook... The Vikings should improve offensively with Cousins at the helm compared to Keenum.
 
Go Panthers said:
ehh i dunno about that. Worley might not have made the team for the panthers this year, and if you look at the WR FA signings, the panthers got a decent receiver for a fraction of the cost of signing one.
Click to expand...
You say that until you realize how much he drops the ball
 
No matter what rule they come up with it's always going to be open to interpretation. It's kinda like defining pornography. You know it when you see it. A catch is a catch when the ball is caught..... period. Start using common sense again and we'll be just fine. Dissect the video to the extent of the Zapruder Film and we're right were we've been at for far too long now.
 
The Titans just signed Blaine Gabbert, should I reserve my Super Bowl tickets now or should I wait?
 
Common sense prevails. A little late but hey at least they are finally coming to their senses. Fans win 32-0!

NFL owners unanimously approve simplified catch rule

The catch rule, proposed by the league's competition committee at the behest of commissioner Roger Goodell, will eliminate the requirement to maintain control of the ball throughout the process of going to the ground. Instead, it will define a catch with a simpler three-step process: A receiver must control of the ball, establish himself in bounds and perform a football move such as taking a third step or lunging with the ball in hand.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22931857/nfl-owners-approve-new-catch-rule-32-0-vote
 
Now, this change is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. We may not have anyone left on the field if this rule is applied to the letter of the new rule. A lot of things that these players do will have to be changed, and quick. This one will definitely be open to interpretation and debated after almost every single game.

I don't have the link but it is said in a USA today article that 24 instances in a single half were found. Hearing this through my local sports talk show station from the hosts.

NFL institutes 15-yard penalty, possible ejection for lowering head to make hit

ORLANDO, Fla. -- NFL owners passed an unexpected rule Tuesday that will expand penalties for contact involving helmets, one that is more significant and far-reaching than the NCAA's targeting rule.

Under the change, a player will be penalized 15 yards and potentially ejected any time he lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent. It will apply to tacklers, ball carriers and even linemen, and it will take the place of a previous rule that limited the penalty to contact with the crown of the helmet.


http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...es-rule-lowering-head-initiate-contact-helmet
 
dpkimmel2001 said:
Now, this change is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. We may not have anyone left on the field if this rule is applied to the letter of the new rule. A lot of things that these players do will have to be changed, and quick.

NFL institutes 15-yard penalty, possible ejection for lowering head to make hit

ORLANDO, Fla. -- NFL owners passed an unexpected rule Tuesday that will expand penalties for contact involving helmets, one that is more significant and far-reaching than the NCAA's targeting rule.

Under the change, a player will be penalized 15 yards and potentially ejected any time he lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent. It will apply to tacklers, ball carriers and even linemen, and it will take the place of a previous rule that limited the penalty to contact with the crown of the helmet.


http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...es-rule-lowering-head-initiate-contact-helmet
Click to expand...

I hate it. HATE HATE HATE it. There are wayyyyy too many flags as it is, and the referees are awful so I'm sure they will get even more flag happy with this new rule. And Roger Goodell wonders why it takes 4 hrs to play one game.....
 
2 Sweet said:
I hate it. HATE HATE HATE it. There are wayyyyy too many flags as it is, and the referees are awful so I'm sure they will get even more flag happy with this new rule. And Roger Goodell wonders why it takes 4 hrs to play one game.....
Click to expand...
I like the change in the catch rule..... Long overdue. I don't want to see anyone get hurt by any means but man, this helmet rule is a game changer.
 
This rule is ridiculous, how about we just start playing flag football? Football is violent, it should remain that way, every player knows what the consequences are. Stop pussyfying the sport, it's getting to the point where the entire game is compromised.
 
Mopardh9 said:
This rule is ridiculous, how about we just start playing flag football? Football is violent, it should remain that way, every player knows what the consequences are. Stop pussyfying the sport, it's getting to the point where the entire game is compromised.
Click to expand...

It's essentially the same as NASCAR throwing a debris caution every 5 laps. Totally over the top unnecessary, and kills the flow of the game.
 
The "football move" thing is still murky and hard to define, but at least the catch rule has been simplified and stripped of the worst part.

IMO all the wannabe tough guys can talk smack about how real men play football, but the reality is the league has to make major changes to remain socially acceptable with its enormous fan base, given where brain injury research is going.
 
gnomesayin said:
IMO all the wannabe tough guys can talk smack about how real men play football, but the reality is the league has to make major changes to remain socially acceptable with its enormous fan base, given where brain injury research is going.
Click to expand...

Do the players want this new rule? No.

Do the fans want this new rule? No.

it's simply a knee-jerk reaction to the growing concern about concussions. They are going way too far IMO. Improve the helmets, eliminate the kickoffs, fine. But don't add more rules/penalties when penalties are already called at an all-time high and your refs can't even get the simplest of calls right.
 
2 Sweet said:
It's essentially the same as NASCAR throwing a debris caution every 5 laps. Totally over the top unnecessary, and kills the flow of the game.
Click to expand...
I know...how many reviews we going to have now? 5 hour games....this sucks....make the equipment better, sign a waiver, let's be gladiators. Football was never intended to be wimpy.
 
2 Sweet said:
Do the players want this new rule? No.

Do the fans want this new rule? No.
Click to expand...

I think the first question needs to be considered a little more broadly. Players wouldn't have publicly claimed to want any rules protections in the literal head hunting days of the 1970s and 80s either, but they have a way of reconsidering later when the ramifications become clear.

There is no reliable polling possible on what fans want regarding a just announced rule change. There won't be until many weeks of games have been played under them.
 
gnomesayin said:
I think the first question needs to be considered a little more broadly. Players wouldn't have publicly claimed to want any rules protections in the literal head hunting days of the 1970s and 80s either, but they have a way of reconsidering later when the ramifications become clear.

There is no reliable polling possible on what fans want regarding a just announced rule change. There won't be until many weeks of games have been played under them.
Click to expand...
This is going to be a cluster F... I'm for safety, but the NFL will be totally compromised by this rule.
 
I'm no football expert by any means. I used to be a hardcore Chiefs fan and also watched 3-5 games per week. Now I don't even watch a game each week. I basically am a casual NFL fan who only watches the big games. My lessened interest has nothing to do with safety initiatives. I've just filled my life with other things I like better.

That said, I believe this is generally in line with the head-up way that tackling is now being taught at youth levels of the game.

It is possible this could be more consistent and fair than before. Peviously players were still allowed to lower their heads, but if certain other random other conditions occurred, it could become an 'illegal' hit purely because of a bad result.

I don't know, remains to be seen.
 
gnomesayin said:
I'm no football expert by any means. I used to be a hardcore Chiefs fan and also watched 3-5 games per week. Now I don't even watch a game each week. I basically am a casual NFL fan who only watches the big games. My lessened interest has nothing to do with safety initiatives. I've just filled my life with other things I like better.

That said, I believe this is generally in line with the head-up way that tackling is now being taught at youth levels of the game.

It is possible this could be more consistent and fair than before. Peviously players were still allowed to lower their heads, but if certain other random other conditions occurred, it could become an 'illegal' hit purely because of a bad result.

I don't know, remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think that lowering your head to tackle is an extremely bad habit. But I hate bad officiating and I despise excessive penalties. NFL referees have proven to be completely incapable of using good judgement on a consistent basis. Any new rule that complicates matters further is a terrible move.

The NFL talks out of both sides of their mouth; they say they want to speed up the games, yet they add more penalties and replay reviews and junk that slows the game way down.
 
2 Sweet said:
Don't get me wrong, I think that lowering your head to tackle is an extremely bad habit. But I hate bad officiating and I despise excessive penalties. NFL referees have proven to be completely incapable of using good judgement on a consistent basis. Any new rule that complicates matters further is a terrible move.

The NFL talks out of both sides of their mouth; they say they want to speed up the games, yet they add more penalties and replay reviews and junk that slows the game way down.
Click to expand...
I agree...I just don't see how this is going to be beneficial to the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom