2019-2020 NFL Thread

[Kyanion]

Makes me wonder what the fuck they are doing with the infusion of cash that Tom Dundon supposedly gave the league. How can it fold this quickly? Sorry they expected the NFLPA to give them players in year ONE? You guys aren't a development league YET, you are a start up football league that needs to establish itself BEFORE you try and link up with the NFL.

[Slowpoke is a Gamer]

Surprised Nelson retired. He wasn't terrible last year, figured he'd have a market as a rotational veteran. Or the starter for the Ravens.

Also the KC OT proposal will be picked up again in May. Still don't expect it to pass. The NFL is very paranoid about turning into College Football where you get into 3OT sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Makes me wonder what the fuck they are doing with the infusion of cash that Tom Dundon supposedly gave the league. How can it fold this quickly? Sorry they expected the NFLPA to give them players in year ONE? You guys aren't a development league YET, you are a start up football league that needs to establish itself BEFORE you try and link up with the NFL.

Probably either

A. Stadium leases.

B. Player payment.

Or, and probably most likely,

C. Those sweet sweet TV deals.

[ProphetFlume]

I still don't understand the problem with both teams getting the ball in OT? Though I can think of a couple reasons why a Patriots fan wouldn't like it.

[xskarma]

I still don't understand the problem with both teams getting the ball in OT? Though I can think of a couple reasons why a Patriots fan wouldn't like it.

It devalues defense. If you are getting the ball anyway, then all you need is a good offense that can keep scoring. It also means that if you have a better defense and a so-so offense that there is now more pressure on YOUR offense to do well as well, cause you know that nothing you do will prevent the other team from getting the ball. It just turns it into even more of offensive oriented game, where spending money on a good defense is no longer a sound choice. It's already that way due to the naturally popularity of offense.

And here's the other reason why: OT rules as they are ALREADY about as even as they can be between going first and going second. There's a lot of people out there advocating the NFL switch to the college rules on OT, but, fun fact, the college rules are actually more uneven then the NFL ones, with the team in College going second having a distinct advantage. The theory is that this is because the team going second knows what it needs to do.

I fear that introducing a mandatory possession for both teams in the pros will lead to a similar problem, that OT will actually grow more unfair, just instead of favouring the one who goes first a little bit it will now favour the one who goes second by even more.

Between it making defense even less important and the likelyhood for the unwanted consequence of just shifting the problem, I'm a big proponent of keeping the rules as they are.

[draynay]

I haven't seen a compelling reason to change OT, I've spoken in the past the same way, that defense should matter and conceding your inability to prevent a TD is not how I want the NFL to be.

[Brubear]

It devalues defense. If you are getting the ball anyway, then all you need is a good offense that can keep scoring. It also means that if you have a better defense and a so-so offense that there is now more pressure on YOUR offense to do well as well, cause you know that nothing you do will prevent the other team from getting the ball. It just turns it into even more of offensive oriented game, where spending money on a good defense is no longer a sound choice. It's already that way due to the naturally popularity of offense.

And here's the other reason why: OT rules as they are ALREADY about as even as they can be between going first and going second. There's a lot of people out there advocating the NFL switch to the college rules on OT, but, fun fact, the college rules are actually more uneven then the NFL ones, with the team in College going second having a distinct advantage. The theory is that this is because the team going second knows what it needs to do.

I fear that introducing a mandatory possession for both teams in the pros will lead to a similar problem, that OT will actually grow more unfair, just instead of favouring the one who goes first a little bit it will now favour the one who goes second by even more.

Between it making defense even less important and the likelyhood for the unwanted consequence of just shifting the problem, I'm a big proponent of keeping the rules as they are.

The most recent stats I saw show that the team who goes first in OT has about a 54.2% chance of winning under the current rules. What stats I can find for college ball put the second-possession team somewhere in the 52-55% win range.

However, there is more to these stats than the simple "which team wins more". For example, college has had these rules for longer and has more teams so they have a much larger sample size both in the regular season and in bowl games. The NFLs OT rules are fairly new, and haven't been as big of an issue unless they're pertaining to the playoffs (you don't hear near as much complaint about them during the regular season since losing an OT game in the regular doesn't doesn't usually end up in your season being over). Plus, of the 8 OT games in the NFL that have been in the playoffs, the team that went first won 7 of the 8 games (I can't find a similar stat for College Ball that only breaks down bowl games) so what games we do have shows in the playoffs it's a deciding factor, but the sample size is too small to say anything definitive. Of the NFL teams that won when getting the ball first, 34% of the winning teams (and 16% of the wins overall) were on the first drive, which means that if the team who gets the ball first wins the game, more likely than not they won it without the other teams offense getting a chance.

There's also the fact that we can't draw a complete 1-to-1 comparison between the two because NCAA you play until someone scores more points, no matter how many quarters it takes, whereas even if the NFL did adopt a both teams get a chance policy it would likely still be limited to 1 possession for each team and then a sudden death shootout.
Another point that I've seen brought up regarding the current OT system is that the team that goes first is more likely to have more time and possessions to move the ball than the other team.

I also don't buy the argument that allowing both teams a defense means that defense won't matter. To avoid a tie you still need to get a stop against the other team, and if you get a stop on their very first possession then you literally just need to score a field goal and win the game. If anything it opens up a bit more of a strategic element as a coach because, if you're a team with a great defense and an average offense, you now have to weigh if you want to go first and hope you get a touchdown to put the pressure on the other team or go second, rely on your defense to get a stop and then your offense to come away with some points but not necessarily a touchdown. If you have a great offense and an average defense, do you opt to go first and just trust your defense to keep them from scoring a touchdown, or do you trust your offense enough to know that their defense won't be able to stop your offense but your defense is just good enough to stop their offense?

Watching a team in the playoffs lose in overtime without touching the ball will always leave a bad taste in my mouth no matter what team it is. We don't have to go to a full-blown college-style system but it can still be improved. Could adopt a system where whatever team wins the flip decides on either offense/defense and the other team picks a side of the field like the pre-game flip, and then if the game is still tied after each teams possession you move to a shootout-style where it goes until someone can't score or even a sudden-death first team to score wins. Either way, at least both teams gets a shot in the OT period.

[xskarma]

The most recent stats I saw show that the team who goes first in OT has about a 54.2% chance of winning under the current rules. What stats I can find for college ball put the second-possession team somewhere in the 52-55% win range.

However, there is more to these stats than the simple "which team wins more". For example, college has had these rules for longer and has more teams so they have a much larger sample size both in the regular season and in bowl games. The NFLs OT rules are fairly new, and haven't been as big of an issue unless they're pertaining to the playoffs (you don't hear near as much complaint about them during the regular season since losing an OT game in the regular doesn't doesn't usually end up in your season being over). Plus, of the 8 OT games in the NFL that have been in the playoffs, the team that went first won 7 of the 8 games (I can't find a similar stat for College Ball that only breaks down bowl games) so what games we do have shows in the playoffs it's a deciding factor, but the sample size is too small to say anything definitive. Of the NFL teams that won when getting the ball first, 34% of the winning teams (and 16% of the wins overall) were on the first drive, which means that if the team who gets the ball first wins the game, more likely than not they won it without the other teams offense getting a chance.

There's also the fact that we can't draw a complete 1-to-1 comparison between the two because NCAA you play until someone scores more points, no matter how many quarters it takes, whereas even if the NFL did adopt a both teams get a chance policy it would likely still be limited to 1 possession for each team and then a sudden death shootout.
Another point that I've seen brought up regarding the current OT system is that the team that goes first is more likely to have more time and possessions to move the ball than the other team.

I also don't buy the argument that allowing both teams a defense means that defense won't matter. To avoid a tie you still need to get a stop against the other team, and if you get a stop on their very first possession then you literally just need to score a field goal and win the game. If anything it opens up a bit more of a strategic element as a coach because, if you're a team with a great defense and an average offense, you now have to weigh if you want to go first and hope you get a touchdown to put the pressure on the other team or go second, rely on your defense to get a stop and then your offense to come away with some points but not necessarily a touchdown. If you have a great offense and an average defense, do you opt to go first and just trust your defense to keep them from scoring a touchdown, or do you trust your offense enough to know that their defense won't be able to stop your offense but your defense is just good enough to stop their offense?

Watching a team in the playoffs lose in overtime without touching the ball will always leave a bad taste in my mouth no matter what team it is. We don't have to go to a full-blown college-style system but it can still be improved. Could adopt a system where whatever team wins the flip decides on either offense/defense and the other team picks a side of the field like the pre-game flip, and then if the game is still tied after each teams possession you move to a shootout-style where it goes until someone can't score or even a sudden-death first team to score wins. Either way, at least both teams gets a shot in the OT period.

1) those stats are from 2015, when the OT rules had only generally been in place since 2012. The stats I saw on the difference between going first and second was not as big as 4.2%

2) There's definitely a possibility that the situation is screwed in the playoffs when both teams are more able offensively and the chances of them scoring are higher. Like you said though only 8 games is far too small of a sample size to really say anything.

It's a difficult situation, cause 2) is obviously a result of offensive football being more favoured by the rules, but then, you kind of WANT offensive football to have a slight edge, cause across a full season of games it's more interesting if there's an ability to score.

I still feel that giving an even further edge to offensive football is a bad thing, but maybe the rules are already so screwed that we kind of need to balance OT rules because of them. That's kind of a sad thought.

[draynay]

Robert Quinn is getting traded to the Cowboys. I assume there must be some kind of restructure because his cap hit is unpleasant.

rumor mill says that an unidentified team offered a 2nd round pick for Rosen but the Cards are holding out for a #1

[xskarma]

rumor mill says that an unidentified team offered a 2nd round pick for Rosen but the Cards are holding out for a #1

Still a month to go, but this is starting to heat up into an actual thing. In theory Patriots could offer their first rounder (which is slightly better than the first pick in the 2nd round) for Rosen + a pick. Otherwise I think the Patriots won't be in the discussion cause their highest 2nd rounder is at 24 (56th overall).

I'll be honest, I think the first round pick is probably too valuable to give up for a back up QB, even if they get like a 4th or 5th rounder back. Too many good defensive prospects.

[Slowpoke is a Gamer]

Uh.... Schiano out as the Patriots DC?

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1111364333496422400

- - - Updated - - -

Still a month to go, but this is starting to heat up into an actual thing. In theory Patriots could offer their first rounder (which is slightly better than the first pick in the 2nd round) for Rosen + a pick. Otherwise I think the Patriots won't be in the discussion cause their highest 2nd rounder is at 24 (56th overall).

I'll be honest, I think the first round pick is probably too valuable to give up for a back up QB, even if they get like a 4th or 5th rounder back. Too many good defensive prospects.

A low 1st for an heir apparent, if you like Rosen, maybe.

Problem is I don't see any team picking that low that would want an heir apparent over the "one missing piece" this year. And that relies on someone liking Rosen enough to say "he's our future."

Realistically if the Cards are already determined they're moving on, the market probably doesn't heat up much more and they move Rosen week before the draft for a 2nd round pick. Or, if they aren't already determined, they end up sticking with Rosen because the compensation wasn't there.

[xskarma]

Uh.... Schiano out as the Patriots DC?

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1111364333496422400

This is VERY unusual. I wonder what happened. We just signed one of his cronies to the staff as well, wonder what happens to him now.

A low 1st for an heir apparent, if you like Rosen, maybe.

Problem is I don't see any team picking that low that would want an heir apparent over the "one missing piece" this year. And that relies on someone liking Rosen enough to say "he's our future."

Realistically if the Cards are already determined they're moving on, the market probably doesn't heat up much more and they move Rosen week before the draft for a 2nd round pick. Or, if they aren't already determined, they end up sticking with Rosen because the compensation wasn't there.

I thought about that too, that the Cards may let this ride on what kind of compensation they can get.

- - - Updated - - -

The cynic in me just caught up with current events and wonders if there's some kind of scandal with Schiano coming out in the next few hours/days. This is just REALLY unusual to suddenly decide you want to spend more time on your faith and family. The wording is....suspicious...to me.

[Slowpoke is a Gamer]

This is VERY unusual. I wonder what happened. We just signed one of his cronies to the staff as well, wonder what happens to him now.

Not sure. Who even is available to tap to replace Schiano at this point? That coaching staff has largely been gutted between Patricia and Flores. Between this and Gronk you have to start seeing an opening for teams like the Chiefs, Chargers, and, dare I say it, Browns.

I thought about that too, that the Cards may let this ride on what kind of compensation they can get.

It just makes sense! All the news of "Rosen is for sure gone" has come from other teams, and the sports media. They sunk what was it a top 5 pick in Rosen last year, with the exact same scouting department. If they can't at least milk a first out of this, and if all the drafting power hasn't been ceded to Kingsbury, why move on?

- - - Updated - - -

To your update :P

I honestly was wondering if we'd get some bad health news coming out soon. That's usually wording that you hear when someone gets a bad diagnosis.

[xskarma]

To your update :P

I honestly was wondering if we'd get some bad health news coming out soon. That's usually wording that you hear when someone gets a bad diagnosis.

Now I feel like a dick for thinking scandal first. That might legit be it, that he's got cancer or something similar. That would suck for the guy. I'm not his biggest fan, but you don't wish that on anyone.

[draynay]

That language suits marital problems too. Hopefully it isn't a family member dealing with an illness.

[xskarma]

Not unexpected. Howard didn't fit what the Bears HC Nagy wanted to do.

[Pendulous]

Didn't realize Jordan Howard was one of the worst running backs in the league. Dude's 24 and is averaging around 1k yards a season so far.

[Slowpoke is a Gamer]

*Distant Go Pack Go*

[Espo]

Didn't realize Jordan Howard was one of the worst running backs in the league. Dude's 24 and is averaging around 1k yards a season so far.

He's mostly a product of volume, lately at least. He's been steadily declining since he came into the league (while the Bears have gotten better offensively--but that isn't saying much). I think he graded out above average last year (if you believe PFF). He's also really limited in the passing game. And, well, the value of RBs in the league doesn't help either.

But we'll see how he does in Philly. I'm optimistic as he now has a far better offense to work in now, with things like a functioning QB, receivers, etc.

[draynay]

I haven't heard much about Jay Ajayi, clearly the Eagles have moved on from him, wonder if any other teams are interested.

[Pendulous]

I haven't heard much about Jay Ajayi, clearly the Eagles have moved on from him, wonder if any other teams are interested.

He played at Boise State, so we know where he's heading.