Warhawk
-
Posts
1,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Warhawk
-
-
So, yeah. This is what it feels like to win Russian Roulette, right?
-
Heh, I believe I've created a monster.
-
That would be strange considering one of Tampa's biggest problems was that Schiano ran too much zone when their defensive personelle is better suited to man. Lovie is famous for using zone defenses. I dont see that working on that level, although just about everything is an upgrade to Schiano.
Yeah, but Lovie has Bucs connections, via Tony Dungy.
The rumor I heard involved McKay coming back along with Lovie, but I don't know how much credence to give that.
Regardless, if someone involved with the Bucs is in love with the idea of the Tampa-2 given its origins with that team, Lovie would be a logical hire.
Not saying he's the best choice, but he is a good coach who would make sense with the team in question.
-
Im honestly surprised no interest in Lovie, if he doesnt get an interview with the Lions, I dont see any team seriously considering him.
Well, last I heard was that he was the favorite for the Tampa job. Dunno if anything has changed there in the last few hours
-
Caldwell shows plenty of emotion actually if you have seen any of his speeches in the locker room as the Colts former HC and he has also shown some on the sidelines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujvgSlXW9FY
A small sample
Yeah, but it's more fun to pretend like he doesn't.
(Side Note: How frickin' worthless was Chip Vaughan, eh? I mean, if you look closely, you can see the ghost of Johnny Unitas cussing him out on that play).
-
I suspect that O'Brien will be good, but not for like 3 years.
Which is a good thing for him I guess, since Houston has generally been pretty patient with coaches.
-
That team needs some stability at the HC position, I think from a emotional standpoint they get that in Caldwell, he is not going to go psycho on the sidelines and get up in another coaches face frothing at the mouth and act like one of his players. Hope it works out for him if he is hired
Well, sure, but it's got to be an awful inconvenience to have a coach whose pre-game warmup checklist includes "check for pulse."
-
I dunno, when I saw the headline "Lions considering Jim Caldwell" I accidentally misread it as "Lions considering punching themselves in face" by accident.
Purely unintentional, I swear.
Then again, I'm also convinced I saw a headline saying "Browns consider lighting selves on fire" today, but it turned out to just be an article on Josh McDaniels.
Huh.
-
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_24823030/peyton-manning-passing-record-under-review-nfl
I'm pretty surprised. I'm inferring from Signora's comments that they decided to let this stand because of the circumstances. The NFL does have a heart.
Well, at least I know I can file the NFL in my "scarecrow" bin instead of my "tin man" bin.
Brain, rather than heart, lacking.
-
I've heard they are expecting about 3/8 of the stadium to be Chiefs fans, any truth to that?
You been reading posts on ChiefsPlanet?
-
They ought to implement the system baseball has, in regards to stat changes. Say for example, a guy hits a hard shot, that takes a bad bounce, goes off the infielder's glove, and into the outfield for a single. At first its ruled an error. It gets reviewed immediately, and if it needs to be changed to a hit, its done within 10 minutes, and announced. There should be stat people at each game reviewing plays that are close, like the Peyton play, and decide immediately whether it was or wasn't a lateral.
That would solve this type of issue.
You're right. They probably should do that. Unfortunately, it's a bit late for that kind of thing to help Manning here.
-
My argument isn't to say they shouldn't go back and change the stat if it's not correct. If it's not then by all means go back and change it like I said when I first posted in this I am all for getting it right. However, I am also for getting calls correct that change the playoff picture like we saw on Sunday. I would argue more that they need to come up with a way to try to make sure they get the later correct going forward than really addressing how they look at stats.
They have a way to do that. It's called replay. It's implemented poorly and needs to be changed somewhat, but it's there.
As far as fixing those problems after the fact, though, I'm sure they've had that discussion. There's just no feasible, practical, reliable way to do it. You can't just fly the team out to go through the field goal attempt again. That costs a LOT of money, it cuts into teams' prep time for the playoffs, the weather is different, the condition of the players is different, the players can drill the situation and could approach it differently than they would have in the game.
There's just no way to do it.
-
Gotcha. Totally understand...I'm more of a guy that will say did you see that play Peyton or Tom made...or that TD pass he made....the window he fit it in. I don't think at any point I would have said did you see that "Lateral" Peyton tossed....I think I probably would say that was a nice pass Peyton threw to Decker for a nice gain. Like when that kid threw that perfect game a couple years ago...and they gave the guy a hit when he was out....to me it was still a perfect game...despite what Elias or whoever does the stats in MLB...just me. Statistically it was a great season no matter what..very impressive and we will just wait and see what they decide. I'm sure they will use indisputable evidence to over turn the pass/laterral...so if there are multiple angles and one looks one way and the other another...they will just let it stand..but its their job..then go and do it....I just question the need for their job lol.
Oh, it was a fantastic season. No doubt.
And I'm sure the guys at Elias will get around to reviewing it after they finish setting up their Warhammer 40K figurines.
/sick burn
-
Is this supposed to be funny??
No, it's supposed to be a epic tragedy.
YES it's supposed to be funny. It can't always ACTUALLY be funny. I can't bat 1.000 here people.
-
My personal opinion is that if we aren't going to fix something that was a clear mistake and knocked someone out of the playoffs I don't think we should go back and change stats after the game and yes I know one is much easier to fix than the other.
I know it's how it's done but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it. With that said if they go back and change it they change it I don't really care that much about it.
Well, same with changing rules - maybe it's not how it should be done, and maybe we should just use the stats the guys who run the gametracker on NFL.com plug in (they're constantly wrong, but, fine), but at the very least, we can't just arbitrarily make that kind of change the last week of this regular season just so that Manning gets the record under the new system.
Besides, as soon as the case comes up where someone would have broken a record if the stat was corrected, you'll have a bunch of people clamoring to change the system to allow for stat corrections after the fact.
I figure, someone's always going to complain when something is recorded wrong initially. Might as well go with the system where the stats end up being more accurate to what actually happened.
-
Yes...it does sound boring...and I just posted my opinon that I thought it was crazy...but I that is just me...like probably people that DON'T care about stats probably seem crazy or their opinion isn't valid to others. I never said someone's opinion wasn't valid...just that my opinion is this seems crazy to even go back and look at. Because to me...if your going to argue over inches for a forward pass...than argue every inch the whole season. To me that would be ludicrus to poor over video to do...just as it was to even go back and look at this play....just my feelings....I think its crazy....because if I am going to get so precise with measuring if the pass was forward or not then I think you should care just as much about every half yard the player got...every quarter yard. I just don't think its necessary or needed but I've really posted too much. I understand some people want to have integrity of the game or a record and thats fine with me...I'm more of a spirit of the play not so much a letter of the law. Please carry on the debate..don't let me side track it.
Sort of a slippery slope argument there. In any case, they're already going back and looking at things, so, at the very least they should be consistent and do the same thing here.
I'm personally not THAT nitpicky with regards to this, but in my discussions with people re: football I like making statistical arguments, so frankly I like the idea that the people keeping those stats are incredibly dull and pedantic. Means the stats are more reliable.
-
I wasn't really serious about it.
My point was this mess up by the officials was a bigger mistake than this yet this is the one people are losing their minds over. Seems a little silly to me.
Well, don't say that bolded part in Pittsburgh, you'll probably get shanked.
Which I suppose doesn't exactly deviate from your usual prospects in Pittsburgh, but hey...
More to the point, this is something that can actually be fixed after the fact, so, given that we're used to officiating screwups, this is somewhat more interesting to people not involved in the Steelers/Chargers/Chiefs brouhaha.
-
i wasnt calling for it to be used , as i noted at the very top it wasnt from me but a com mentor to article on Mile High Report, like our stampede blue ( again i wrote If u think the comments here are exhausting u need to read those on mile high report )
sorry if it sounded like I said it , am just saying on the Denver version of stampede blue comments are really wild
I know, sorry, I was using the general "you" as in "you, a hypothetical person," not "you, bayone."
So just wherever I said "you" in that post, pretend I said "one" or something. It'll have the added benefit of making my post sound more pretentious.
Or you could change it to "a man", assume I'm talking to myself, and thus pretend I'm actually Jaqen H'ghar. Clearly, a man should strive for greater grammatical clarity.
-
Look I am all for getting it right and if they change it fine but if I am Steelers fan if they change this I am demanding they make KC fly back to San Diego and retry that field goal and go back and call the flag they should have. That's a much bigger mess up than this.
Completely different issue. What we're talking about here is the stats guys moving a number from column A to column B when whether it was in column A or B had zero impact on the game. That's easy to fix, without any consequences to the team. What you're talking about is an officiating error. Unfortunately, there's no way to fix officiating errors other than replay, and the NFL, in their infinite thickness, have only extended replay to certain things.
-
If u think the comments here are exhausting u need to read those on mile high report
I posted one earlier
Took a 2nd look and saw this one added , THis one was in GREEN Highlights I think it meant a serious # of recommendations, sort of our like system
Know what the NFL should determine?
They should say “When he established possession and made a foot ball move after establishing possession, he was beyond the 49 yard line”
Think about it. That’s the * they always pull to determine why a fumble isn’t really a fumble even though we all know the dude fumbled the ball.
So what the NFL should do is say that after he a) established full * control of the ball AND took 2 steps to make a football move, he was beyond the 49 yard line (more like beyond the 50), so the play should stand! Record for Manning!
That's kind of insane.
I mean, I guess you could theoretically change the rule to that (since that's most definitely NOT what the rule is now) - not that you should, mind you, but I guess you could - but even if you did (and let's be honest, you'd be changing a rule solely because the current rule didn't work out in Manning's favor) - even if you did, you couldn't apply it retroactively.
But seriously, that's definitely not the rule.
-
No. I'm saying I dont care if its a pass or not...if I look at an inch forward or backwards I say count the inches each player runs with it or it goes too....so what i'm really saying is if people are so obsessed with an inch or two...count them all...not just if it was a pass or not....i'm saying let it be...do we really care??? That all said obviously people do and I don't so I made my point and I will let this go. Whatever happens I won't care one bit..I just think its wierd to even go back to look at this stuff....EVER...regardless of circumstance.
We get it, you don't care about a high degree of accuracy in stat-keeping. So, why get involved in this debate? I mean, I absolutely agree with you that I don't need stats to appreciate that Manning is a great QB, but, that's kind of besides the point. Just because you think it's crazy that people care about stats and records doesn't mean that their opinions on the matter are invalid. I mean, there's nothing wrong with your opinion that it doesn't matter whether Manning breaks Brees' record, because there's nothing wrong with taking a largely subjective, wide-lens view of analyzing quarterback quality. More power to you for that.
But frankly, coming into a thread where people are discussing how to treat a play on the stat sheet and going on and on about how you don't really care about statistics is sorta like coming into a thread where people are debating whether star wars or star trek is better and posting about how you prefer the works of Jane Austen over modern speculative fiction. OK, valid opinion no matter how much I loathe Jane Austen, but it's not really relevant to the debate, and it doesn't invalidate the debate in any way either. Lots of people care about stats and records. Lots of people also like drag racing, or caviar, or JRPGs. I don't like any of those things, but that doesn't mean a debate over which kind of fish has the tastiest eggs has no value. Maybe not to me, but its perfectly legitimate to them.
In any case, the point in regards to your comment is that they're not nitpicking to quite that level. What they do when they review the games is adjust fairly basic things, like who gets credit for a tackle or a sack, or whether a play was a run or a pass. Insofar as WR targets is measured, I know that's something that can get changed a fair bit too. The key difference here is that they're not changing anything that actually happened in the game, and they're not fixing refs' mistakes or anything like that. They're just taking the numbers from the game, and making sure they're in the right columns.
That may sound phenomenally boring to you, but, that's what it is.
-
Personally I think ref calls stand so therefore any records stand with it- good or bad.
Like he cares anyway
The refs don't make a call there in the first place. Decker obtains possession without the ball touching the ground, so, from the referees' standpoint, it makes no difference whether it was a forward pass or a lateral. The refs don't keep stats. Just like if a player is tackled, it makes no difference to the refs which player is credited with the tackle - the only thing the refs are concerned about is whether the player with the ball was down, and where. The statisticians are the ones who determine who gets the credit in their tackle column, or whether to classify yards gained on a particular play as receiving or rushing yards.
-
While I'm clowning myself, let me add, Doom will come to the Colts if DHB can't go. He got concussed and isn't practicing.
Oh no! Who's going to tackle the opposing kick and punt returner?
Besides Brown obviously.
But what if Brown has a setback!?!? Then we'll have nobody!
Well, except Pat. Right.
OK, so, we're good then.
-
have a question Re rules i dont know, am done repeating myself on my feelings
but if u pass behind so its a lateral but a defender runs fast enough that he catches the behind pass , is it ruled an IT or fumble recoivery
It's a fumble recovery. Now, it may get called an INT on the field, but since it wouldn't affect the play one way or the other since the ball wouldn't touch the ground, it could be changed to a fumble recovery after the fact.
Look at it this way - if Decker drops the ball, and the Raiders recover, and given that it would probably be reviewed either way, what would be the correct call? It would be fumble, rather than incomplete pass, because the ball was not traveling forward.
What would you rate Coach Pagano?
in Colts Football
Posted
Like an 8 given the context.
Seriously, who gave him a 2? And a 3?
What's wrong with you?