I agreed with this all till you got to the Let Josh be Josh part.
Allen is great, but he needs to clean up his turnovers. Hardo is not wrong there and also wanting to protect your QB from punishment seems like a weird thing to get on a coach for.
Allen is great, but he needs to clean up his turnovers. Hardo is not wrong there and also wanting to protect your QB from punishment seems like a weird thing to get on a coach for.
Another week, another broken starting QB: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39097619/source-justin-herbert-having-season-ending-finger-surgery
Easton Stick (who is a football player, and not a hockey brand) will be starting in his place this Thursday vs. LVR.
Easton Stick (who is a football player, and not a hockey brand) will be starting in his place this Thursday vs. LVR.
Last edited:
Yessir, I'm also living in São Paulo now, have already made plans with all my buddies to go watch it. Pretty fucking stoked, didn't think it would happen so soon!
I think the Dolphins hold the rights to games in Brazil. Maybe you can watch Coach Hardo (if he survives this year) versus the Dolphins and Coach Bulldog...
Yeah, it'll be the Dolphins vs. an NFC team, that's the speculation at the moment. They play the NFC West and the NFC North team that finished in the same place in their division, so I guess Dolphins vs. 49ers is in the cards, which would be amazing. There's actually a pretty big contingent of 9ers fans here.
I would guess they would not want the premiere matchup like that, they usually put not great matchups overseas. I'd guess Dolphins/Rams, Dolphins/Cardinals or maybe Dolphins/NFC North (GB, DET, MIN depending where all teams involve finish).
They did put Dolphins Chiefs game in Germany this year so maybe the league's reluctance to put showcase games overseas is changing. The NFL is trying to grow the game overseas.
YEah could definitely be. Though I'd put that as a 2nd tier game for the Chiefs, they held back the Chiefs/Bengals matchup for a primetime domestic game
The league is looking into changing the endzone fumble rule:
If they still want to punish it to some degree, moving the ball back to the 20 or something could work.
If they still want to punish it to some degree, moving the ball back to the 20 or something could work.
I don’t mind the current rule, since the offense already gets the benefit of a TD once the ball hits the line with possession (now many damn times does a QB jump over the top to extend the ball), but if enough people hate the rule because it is too punitive then I think it’s fine to pivot.
If you do this, then what is the down / distance? 1st and goal from the 20? Or just the next down?
I don't know why it should be punitive at all. You get the ball at the spot of the fumble. Although if they decide there needs to be punishment for some reason, a 5 yard penalty or something is fine. Anything is better than what they have now.
Last edited:
I think the logic for it being punitive is that in the vast majority of these situations the fumble occurs because the offensive player is stretch for the goal line in an attempt to score. There is a clear reward to the action. But there is also risk - if you lose it early and it goes through the end zone, you lose possession. I can see the argument why that it is too punitive. But it's a risk/reward situation and it is a different kind of play than what happens pretty much everywhere else on the field.
The risk is if you stretch and you fumble, given the nature of a bouncing football, there's every real chance that you fumble it and it bounces back into the field of play, or that it bounces to the other team.
I mean, you reach for the goal line and you lose it and it bounces out of bounds at the one inch line, you get the ball right there at the one inch line. Why should the ball bouncing two inches beyond and hits the pylon mean that the ball should go to the other team?
Right. But I don't think it should be punitive at all, unless you actually turn the ball over to the other team. So if it goes out of bounds in the end zone, you get the ball back at the one yard line. (or one inch line) Just like if you fumbled it out at the one inch line.
You should get it at the spot of the fumble. A ball punched out at the 10 that goes through the end zone should be put back in play at the 10, not the 1.
Sure, I can live with that. But shouldn't that be true for any fumble? Why should you benefit from a fumble anywhere else on the field if it just happens to bounce forward and you recover it there?
But if even the slightest tip of the ball crosses the line, it's a TD. That's a reward that doesn't exist on any other part of the field. The play is dead at that point. You couldn't do the same thing on the rest of the field because if it was knocked loose, it would be a fumble.
Because in those cases you actively recovered it and secured possession. In this case you didn't. You get the ball where you last had possession.
It's a weird rule as it's the one of only 2 instances where a fumble out of bounds causes loss of possession, and the other one rightfully results in a safety.
Seems like the easiest is to bring it back to the line of scrimmage at the start of the play. That can be a significant penalty if the fumble happened at the end of a 50 yard play, but it's still far less severe than a turnover. But most such plays start really close to the end zone anyway. Have to figure out a way to deal with a defensive player returning a fumble or INT and then fumbling out the other end zone, but then maybe it becomes the 1 yard line.
Seems like the easiest is to bring it back to the line of scrimmage at the start of the play. That can be a significant penalty if the fumble happened at the end of a 50 yard play, but it's still far less severe than a turnover. But most such plays start really close to the end zone anyway. Have to figure out a way to deal with a defensive player returning a fumble or INT and then fumbling out the other end zone, but then maybe it becomes the 1 yard line.
Isn't the easiest to simply give the offense the ball where they fumbled it from?
I don't know how you could legislate this, but to me there is a difference between having the ball punched out by a defender from behind at say the 5 yard line and the ball going through or out of the end zone, and a guy diving for the goal line with his arm outstretched just trying to get the nose of the ball across the line. In the former case I definitely agree that the offense shouldn't lose the ball, and probably shouldn't be punished at all. But in the scenarios where they are making an active risk/reward decision, I think some punishment is warranted.
I don't even see the argument here.
If a ball is fumbled and goes through the end zone, it should absolutely not be a turnover. IMO, you need to recover the damn ball to get the ball. It shouldn't matter if a guy is reaching for the end zone, or has it knocked out at the 10 and it rolls through the end zone.
If you fumble in the field of play and it goes out of bounds, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble (whereas if you recover it, you get it at the spot of the recovery. That's the current rule on every play, except the end zone, with the exception of the last 2 minutes or on fourth down (where the only person who can advance it is the person who fumbled it, otherwise, all of those last second lateral plays would also be forward fumble plays).
It's such a simple solution that I'm shocked it hasn't happened already. If you strip the ball, you need to recover it to get the ball. If you fumble it through the end zone, you get the ball back at the point of the fumble.
If you want to penalize the offense for fumbling it for reaching over the goal line, use the 4th down/2 minute rule. If you fumble a ball forward, and it's recovered by a teammate in the end zone, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble. If you want a TD on that play, then the guy who fumbled has to recover it.
If a ball is fumbled and goes through the end zone, it should absolutely not be a turnover. IMO, you need to recover the damn ball to get the ball. It shouldn't matter if a guy is reaching for the end zone, or has it knocked out at the 10 and it rolls through the end zone.
If you fumble in the field of play and it goes out of bounds, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble (whereas if you recover it, you get it at the spot of the recovery. That's the current rule on every play, except the end zone, with the exception of the last 2 minutes or on fourth down (where the only person who can advance it is the person who fumbled it, otherwise, all of those last second lateral plays would also be forward fumble plays).
It's such a simple solution that I'm shocked it hasn't happened already. If you strip the ball, you need to recover it to get the ball. If you fumble it through the end zone, you get the ball back at the point of the fumble.
If you want to penalize the offense for fumbling it for reaching over the goal line, use the 4th down/2 minute rule. If you fumble a ball forward, and it's recovered by a teammate in the end zone, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble. If you want a TD on that play, then the guy who fumbled has to recover it.
The end zone is different than the 40 yard line, tho. You can break the plane at the goaline and it's a TD and then if you fumble, it's not a fumble. But if you reach for the first down at the 36 and then fumble on the 35 before going down, it's a fumble.
Also, if an offense takes a snap on their own 1 yard line and then the QB fumbles and kicks the ball out of the back of the end zone, it's a fumble and a safety. The defense didn't recover the fumble, but it is still a change of possession. Because the goal line and the end zone are treated differently.
As to the former, if I fumble a ball forward on the 40 yard line, chances are the defense recovers, and if they don't, my teammates do and I get the benefit of the yardage. This is why it's not allowed on 4th down. If the defense recovers, so be it, my team's defense takes the field. If I fumble at the goal line, and the defense recovers, it's literal points off the board. If nobody recovers, I don't see how that ball should go to the defense. That's completely different than a QB or punter intentionally booting a ball out of the end zone to avoid an even worse result of a touchdown for the other team. Think about it this way, if there wasn't such a massive disadvantage to fumbling near the goal line, Belichick wouldn't bench guys that reach the ball out and I don't think the reason BB coaches that way has to do with the fear of the ball going through the end zone, it's the fear of losing possession which yes, is higher because of the end zone. I just see no rhyme or reason why a ball fumbled at the 1 that goes out of bounds should be treated so much differently if it takes a different bounce and goes around the pylon through the end zone.
Like I said, eliminate forward fumble recovery touchdowns altogether, and require either team to recover or it goes back to the spot of the fumble as it does in every other situation (except the weird safety where the offense intentionally kicks out of bounds).
But the risk of actually fumbling on the goal line is smaller, because you just need to get the nose across the line. That allows you to be more "reckless" because once the ball crosses, the play is dead. Whereas if the nose of the ball crosses the 35 yard line, you can still fumble.
Would we still get to laugh at Leon Lett getting chased down by Don Beebe?
I think it should be spot of the fumble.. With an exception... If an offensive player intentionally advances a fumble through the endzone it should be a 15 yard penalty after the play. Will prevent guys just pushing or booting it through the ez to prevent recovery
I like the rule as is because it makes the risk of stretching the ball out higher than it otherwise would be, and it's one of those game changing plays that a defense can make when it otherwise looks screwed.
Absofuckinglutely.
Would love to see some numbers on the number of fumbles as a result of people stretching for the goal line, versus folks fumbling short of the goal line, not stretching the ball that results in the ball going out of bounds. I can remember dozens of the latter, but very few of the former because when someone is in the process of being tackled at the goal line, there are usually a ton of folks there for the recovery, so it doesn't reach out of bounds.
The risk could be smaller at the goal line, but the penalty isn't. That's the trade off.
Pet peeve: I hate when NFL types refer to their team as a “program”.
Colleges have programs.
The NFL has franchises.
Colleges have programs.
The NFL has franchises.
When I run through my mental list of teams who will never win a title due to ownership, I somehow always seem to forget Dean Spanos.
This, to me, is the counterpoint to speculation that BB would end up with the chargers. He noped the hell out of the Jets because of a messy ownership situation. Is he really gonna work for Spanos?
is Spanos messy? I know the reputation of them being cheap but don’t know much beyond that.
This is one of the easiest, if not the easiest, firings of all time. Even Spanos couldn't screw this one up, though, to be fair, he did previously screw it up by keeping Staley around as long as he did.
I like these mercy killings before Black Monday. Gives the owner more time to figure out what to do and gives the coaching staff time to start finding new jobs.
Steep fines for Reid and Mahomes.
View: https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/1736135091330367891?s=46&t=ZAV_cHcUClrN1Zdq09T1Aw
View: https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/1736135091330367891?s=46&t=ZAV_cHcUClrN1Zdq09T1Aw
There is a problem that has recently been noted: For some reason, there’s a disproportionate number of Black coaches taking over aa HC and then being told that nobody liked what they saw. It may not even be overt racism or anything as people think they’re giving them a chance to shine but, in reality, especially since it’s so often with a crappy team, it seems to work against them.
Again: It’s not clear why, but it appears to work against minority candidates. Can’t remember where I saw the interview about it, but it’s something people have become aware of.