2020 NFL: Wk.3 Game Thread

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,642
the Seahawks are reminding me of the 2011-12 Pats. great offense with a franchise QB in his prime, horrific secondary
 

McBride11

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,195
Durham, NC
Schlereth on the Bucs:

“They’ve got a chance to be one of the all time greats.”
Clearly that 2-1 record after drubbing an 0-3 shitastic Broncos team paves the way for all time team.

edit- and a Panthers team that won its first game since like week 10 last year.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,865
The Lions won? Packers might be the real deal this year. NFC is loaded and the 2 best are in the AFC.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Surprised to see he was a big time recruit that went to Boise. He could easily take the starting role from Driskel until Lock comes back. Driskel is really bad.
I think Blake Bortles will be the starting QB next week.

That was a puzzling signing to me. You’re not going anywhere this season; why not start Rypien for a few weeks and see what you’ve got?
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,028
Hartford, CT
Pete accepting the penalty of like 3 net yards and not taking a loss of down and forcing DAL to use aTO to avoid the runoff is stupid as hell.

These game management fuckups willcatch up to him
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,635
I think @Mystic Merlin has bingo — there’s only a runoff if SEA declines the penalty.
Only a runoff if the foul is the only reason the clock is stopped. Note it has to be the foul itself IMMEDIATELY stopping the clock, live-ball fouls such as holds don’t count.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,924
Henderson, NV
Matt Ryan 450. Cam 397. Prescott 472 and counting. brutal pass defense from Seattle.
And the injuries continue to mount:

DE Rasheem Green - IR to return
LB Bruce Irvin - Out for year
DE Darrell Taylor - Still on PUP
CB Quinton Dunbar - Out this week
S Lano Hill - Out this week
CB Neiko Thorpe - Out this week
LB Jordyn Brooks - Injured during this game
S Jamal Adams - Injured during this game

And the pass rush sucked completely before all that. Green was their "top" sack guy last year. Adams and Wagner hold the defense together, so losing him was a huge blow. Irvin was probably their #2 pass rusher. Taylor is a 2nd round pick that won't play until midseason. Dunbar is a starting corner. Brooks got the start at LB replacing Irvin. Thorpe is mostly a special teamer. Hill is the 4th safety.

Even bringing in more bodies is just barely holding the defense together. The secondary isn't as bad as it seems. The lack of pass rush is just killing them. They went pretty much exclusively 2 deep zone after Adams went out to try and protect against the big play and it still didn't help that much.

And losing Lewis and Iupati (briefly) hurt the OL a bit. Carson taking that dirty hit didn't help him at all. They should be able to score as long as they have the offensive weapons. Looks like they'll be in shootouts for awhile.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Only a runoff if the foul is the only reason the clock is stopped. Note it has to be the foul itself IMMEDIATELY stopping the clock, live-ball fouls such as holds don’t count.
The play ended with a tackle in bounds, so there’s a runoff if Carroll declines the penalty, right?

(It obviously didn’t affect the outcome, but now I’m curious.)
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,635
The play ended with a tackle in bounds, so there’s a runoff if Carroll declines the penalty, right?

(It obviously didn’t affect the outcome, but now I’m curious.)
It didn’t immediately stop the clock. By immediately, the clock must stop at the same second the foul occurs. The ball was still live and time elapsed after the flag was thrown.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,749
So in the Saints-Packers game just now, the Packers' D-lineman flinched forward without crossing into the NZ and the Saints' offensive lineman directly opposite him moved. From our past discussions here, I've been led to believe that that's still a neutral zone infraction. Yet when they asked the ref expert, he explained that unless he crosses into the NZ, it's not a NZ infraction, even if the OLineman moves.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,635
So in the Saints-Packers game just now, the Packers' D-lineman flinched forward without crossing into the NZ and the Saints' offensive lineman directly opposite him moved. From our past discussions here, I've been led to believe that that's still a neutral zone infraction. Yet when they asked the ref expert, he explained that unless he crosses into the NZ, it's not a NZ infraction, even if the OLineman moves.
Was he lined up tight on the ball? Also the officiating experts (and the NFL!) on a 50-50 situation will typically back the calling official.

Note that by rule, he is 100% correct. But by philosophy, which by the way the NFL typically does not want made public even to the teams themselves, they typically want that as an NZI for consistency purposes.

EDIT: If it was the Sunday night then the "officiating expert" was Terry McAulay, who usually is as blunt as they come if he thinks there was an error.