[2023-24] NFL Thread - Offseason. Chicago Bears are on the clock.

[Jon]

Not if Belichick is fired first!

Haha, as long as Marvin Harrison Jr. ends up in Arizona I'll be happy.

I have the 1st overall pick in my dynasty league and I do not want Caleb Williams, but I can't watch the Patriots or Bears ruin Harrison.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Not if Belichick is fired first!

*traded

 

[Spiner202]

Guys the Chiefs receivers are really bad. Like they've hit an impressive level of terribleness outside of Rashee Rice.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Guys the Chiefs receivers are really bad. Like they've hit an impressive level of terribleness outside of Rashee Rice.

Toney is probably the worst receiver in the league. It's almost a weekly occurrence that he does something that he negatively effects the offense and he is directly responsible for at least two of their losses.

 

[Spiner202]

Toney is probably the worst receiver in the league. It's almost a weekly occurrence that he does something that he negatively effects the offense and he is directly responsible for at least two of their losses.

It's a toss-up between him and Skyy Moore. Today, Skyy Moore caught one pass, ran 10 yards and then fumbled. The Pats recovered it, but there was a not-real penalty called on the Pats that gave us a first down and erased Moore's fumble.

You could say that Toney has made more negative plays, but I'm not sure if that's true. I've seen several commentators mention that Skyy Moore ran bad routes that resulted in Mahomes throwing interceptions. Also, Toney gets probably between 10-30% of the offensive snaps, whereas until the last few weeks, Moore was getting 50% or more of snaps some games, and still rarely got thrown the ball.

In summary, they both suck.

Also, MVS drops everything and also disappears for the number of snaps he gets.

 

[Webster]

he is directly responsible for at least two of their losses.

Like with last week and that offsides call?

 

[BigDaddy]

Guys the Chiefs receivers are really bad. Like they've hit an impressive level of terribleness outside of Rashee Rice.

Apart from Tyreek Hill, who is the best WR the Chiefs have drafted in the last 30 years? Dwayne Bowe? Yeesh. But I like Rice, and I hope they can hit on someone in the next draft or make a quality FA signing or both.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Apart from Tyreek Hill, who is the best WR the Chiefs have drafted in the last 30 years? Dwayne Bowe? Yeesh. But I like Rice, and I hope they can hit on someone in the next draft or make a quality FA signing or both.

Dwayne Bowe was cheeks.

For the longest time, I felt that the Chief's strong point over the last 20 or so years was their rush attack. They went from Priest Holmes to Jamaal Charles to Kareem Hunt. Their two current RBs aren't total scrubs either. I wish Clyde kept his production up after his first few games in his rookie season. He was fun to watch on his first game. I instantly claimed he was going to win OROY.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Amari Cooper is having a day. 220 yards, 2 TDs. One quarter left.

 

[Webster]

Well, the Panthers didn't disappoint me... (they lost)
I was actually pleased, however, with their performance....

-Bryce Young had 312 yds on 23-35 passes, 2 TD's
-DJ Chark & Adam Thielin nearly had 100yd games respectively (Chark w/98 yards and Thielin w/94 yards)
-Frankie Luvu had 1 sack
-Chark was on the receiving end of Young's 2 touchdown passes

Not a bad day, even if they did lose...now, if Dumbass Tepper would only keep Chris Tabor going into next season and not bring in yet another outside coach...

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Raiders just beat the Chiefs. AFC is massively up for grabs.

 

[A Punched Face]

Raiders just beat the Chiefs. AFC is massively up for grabs.

Gonna be the dolphins

 

[A Punched Face]

This is a very weird game so far.

10-5 is not an expected score.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Njoku has 113 yards already. It's still the first quarter.

 

[TD]

Who is this Joe Flacco?

Legit has me rooting for the Browns in the playoffs, wow.

 

[Jon]

Who is this Joe Flacco?

Legit has me rooting for the Browns in the playoffs, wow.

I can't root for the Browns or the Ravens. I'll let most others pass.

I want the Texans because Stroud.

 

[TD]

I can't root for the Browns or the Ravens. I'll let most others pass.

I want the Texans because Stroud.

I have a list of teams I won't root for and a list of teams I'm indifferent to.

Then there's my Raiders, a constant state of pain, suffering, and confusion.

Basically I root for what I feel is the feel good story in the playoffs and when everyone mocked the Flacco signing, I'm happy to see him balling out.

 

[Cam]

Who is this Joe Flacco?

Legit has me rooting for the Browns in the playoffs, wow.

Flacco's resurgence is the story of the year. He should be the REAL comeback player of the year. Not Hamlin..

 

[TD]

Flacco's resurgence is the story of the year. He should be the REAL comeback player of the year. Not Hamlin..

Agreed 100%.

Don't get me wrong, Hamlin being on the field is miraculous but he's had no impact on the field.

I hope he doesn't win comeback player of the year, nor should he.

 

[Jon]

Hamlin has barely played this season though... how can he be comeback player?

 

[TD]

Hamlin has barely played this season though... how can he be comeback player?

"Politics"

 

[A Punched Face]

"Politics"

It's because he's managed to ever play again after basically dying on the field.

That's enough of a story for the NFL to run on to "inspire" people. It shouldn't be the only thing though, production should be involved. So he shouldn't win. But he still might.

 

[Jon]

"Politics"

 

[Jon]

Should give comeback player of the year to JK Dobbins.

Oh wait...

 

[TD]

It's because he's managed to ever play again after basically dying on the field.

That's enough of a story for the NFL to run on to "inspire" people. It shouldn't be the only thing though, production should be involved. So he shouldn't win. But he still might.

You articulated what I meant much better.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Lions got fucked hard on the 2 point conversion. All video evidence shows that #68 reported himself as an eligible receiver but the refs still penalized him for "illegal touching".

Lions should be 12-4, not 11-5.

 

[Jon]

Lions got fucked hard on the 2 point conversion. All video evidence shows that #68 reported himself as an eligible receiver but the refs still penalized him for "illegal touching".

Lions should be 12-4, not 11-5.

Sadly, even if he had, he wasn't lined up next to a lineman and was off the ball, which makes him an illegible man downfield anyway. Still a penalty.

Credit to Campbell for having the balls to still go for two and the win, but I'd have kicked the PAT and gone to OT after the penalty.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Sadly, even if he had, he wasn't lined up next to a lineman and was off the ball, which makes him an illegible man downfield anyway. Still a penalty.

Credit to Campbell for having the balls to still go for two and the win, but I'd have kicked the PAT and gone to OT after the penalty.

Also, the penalty was "illegal touching" not "illegal formation."

 

[Jon]

The receiver at the top is considered on the line or that's an illegal formation. And if he's on the ball, it means 68 is off the ball and ineligible. And he's lined up on the ball. Trust me, i wanted Detroit to win, but they were lined up wrong regardless of whether or not he reported eligible.

 

[Jon]

Also, the fact he wasn't covered means the referee didn't report him eligible. Whether that was a Montreal Screwjob or not, i don't know, but the Lions borked the formation anyway, sadly.

I was sad they lost, but my opponent in my championship game had Gibbs, Ferguson and Pollard, so I was happy that game didn't go to OT, lol. Gave me a small fighting chance against his Purdy/Deebo/CMC stack (oh and he also has Tyreek).

 

[Fool's Requiem]

They called Illegal touching, not illegal formation. 68 seemingly reported himself as eligible to the refs. If it was an issue with how he lined up, they would have called Illegal Formation, but they didn't.

Detroit got boned by dumb refs who seemingly confused 68 with 70.

 

[Jon]

They called Illegal touching, not illegal formation. 68 seemingly reported himself as eligible to the refs. If it was an issue with how he lined up, they would have called Illegal Formation, but they didn't.

Detroit got boned by dumb refs who seemingly confused 68 with 70.

They literally could have called any of those penalties.

If it's an illegal formation, he's not legally allowed to catch a pass because he's considered a lineman. So, illegal formation, illegal touching of the football... literally didn't matter. All are five yard penalties. And even if he reported eligible, the formation was illegal. So again, literally doesn't matter, they were wronged, I agree, but it was still a penalty, regardless of the call.

I still would have kicked the PAT, but then they were lucky to get Parsons to jump... I STILL kick the PAT in that situation. But Campbell's got bigger balls than I do.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

If it's an illegal formation, he's not legally allowed to catch a pass because he's considered a lineman. So, illegal formation, illegal touching of the football... literally didn't matter.

It does matter, the call they made on the field was incorrect. Illegal formation flags are ALWAYS thrown the second the ball is snapped at the line of scrimmage. They threw the flag WELL AFTER the play was over and claimed illegal touching. The refs didn't have an issue with how they were lined up, they had an issue with 68 catching the ball. And again, he reported himself as eligible.

Edit: I'm not on Reddit, Russ...

 

[Jon]

Look, I said I agree they were screwed, but it really doesn't matter which flag they threw because the whole play was illegal. The NFL is a billion dollar industry. Get the right call. But because they called the LAST infraction does not negate that there WAS an infraction.

That said, I was cheering as hard as a Lions fan when they scored.

 

[Spiner202]

That ref crew was the same one that botched the ending of the Chiefs/Packers game where there were about 4 incorrect calls in the span of a minute (favouring both teams).

But this was an even more impressive mistake. Apparently Dan Campbell told the officials about this play before the game started. From all the videos/analysis I've watched, it appears what happened is that once the ref saw #70 coming over, he assumed that he was reporting as eligible (rather than #68) because #70 had reported as eligible several times throughout the game. So basically the ref just didn't do his job.

Also, it's 100% not an illegal formation if #68 is eligible. Multiple former NFL players have confirmed this, but it's because #68 is the eligible receiver covering the end of the line and #14 is not considered to be on the line.

 

[TD]

It's so pathetic that so many games end up being about how shit the refs are rather than how amazing or poorly certain players/teams did.

 

[Jon]

Also, it's 100% not an illegal formation if #68 is eligible. Multiple former NFL players have confirmed this, but it's because #68 is the eligible receiver covering the end of the line and #14 is not considered to be on the line.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Former NFL players confirming doesn't mean anything. By NFL rule, if 68 in eligible, then 70 is not. The defense did NOT line up opposite 68, which MAKES that an illegal formation whether 68 reported eligible or not.

The referee is claiming 70 reported eligible and not 68. But 70 is saying he did not report eligible. It's a he said she said, but it is the PLAYER'S responsibility to ensure the referee knows who is eligible on a play. Especially an untimed play with the game on the line.

I love blaming the referees as much as anyone, but to remove all fault from the Lions in this case seems over the top to me. They hold some as well.

ALL that said, I STILL say the refs screwed up, as I have all along. But the Lions are also the ones that decided to go for it 3 times instead of taking it to OT.

 

[Spiner202]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Former NFL players confirming doesn't mean anything. By NFL rule, if 68 in eligible, then 70 is not. The defense did NOT line up opposite 68, which MAKES that an illegal formation whether 68 reported eligible or not.

The referee is claiming 70 reported eligible and not 68. But 70 is saying he did not report eligible. It's a he said she said, but it is the PLAYER'S responsibility to ensure the referee knows who is eligible on a play. Especially an untimed play with the game on the line.

I love blaming the referees as much as anyone, but to remove all fault from the Lions in this case seems over the top to me. They hold some as well.

ALL that said, I STILL say the refs screwed up, as I have all along. But the Lions are also the ones that decided to go for it 3 times instead of taking it to OT.

The second part will definitely never come out, because the NFL won't release the audio. You could argue it's the player's responsibility, but based on what the Lions are saying and the video evidence, it suggests that the Lions told him the correct person, and because they didn't have a timeout or a long enough play clock, they couldn't get the referee to correct their mistake.

As for the first part of what you're saying, there's no relationship between the defence and an illegal formation by the offence. The defence can line up anywhere they want in any formation they want, as long as they aren't offsides. The rule is that there must 7 offensive players on the line and an eligible receiver at the very end of each side of the line.

 

[Jon]

The second part will definitely never come out, because the NFL won't release the audio. You could argue it's the player's responsibility, but based on what the Lions are saying and the video evidence, it suggests that the Lions told him the correct person, and because they didn't have a timeout or a long enough play clock, they couldn't get the referee to correct their mistake.

You are 100% right on that. But, it IS the player's responsibility. That's the rule. THEY need to declare. It just depends who you believer in this instance in the end. But it's a PAT, there's a play clock, but it's an untimed down. So the players should have made sure the ref knew the right eligible players.

As for the first part of what you're saying, there's no relationship between the defence and an illegal formation by the offence. The defence can line up anywhere they want in any formation they want, as long as they aren't offsides. The rule is that there must 7 offensive players on the line and an eligible receiver at the very end of each side of the line.

That's not entirely accurate. The reasons it matters is it proves the defense was not told 68 was eligible, 70 was. WHERE that mistake came from can be debated. But the Cowboys were not told 68 was eligible, so they left him uncovered, blocked 70, and 68 was WIDE open for the catch.

Which means, it's an illegal formation (which was also called on the play and declined by Dallas) AND illegal touching (which was accepted). So again, the call was accurate, but what led UP TO it is what's in question. And how.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

where the defense lines up is up to the defense. If a offense player is uncovered by the defense, that's not his problem.

Typically, when an offensive lineman reports as an eligible receiver, it means they want to bolster the line with more thickness, leading to the defense believing they were going to do a run play, so they lined up as such. 68 was basically line up as a TE.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

That's not entirely accurate. The reasons it matters is it proves the defense was not told 68 was eligible, 70 was.

that would be the refs fault.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

Which means, it's an illegal formation (which was also called on the play and declined by Dallas) AND illegal touching (which was accepted)

Only one penalty was called. Illegal touching. No ref said anything about illegal formation.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

10 games in the early window, 3 in the afternoon.

Snow game in Chicago.

Pats just started their game against the Bills with a Kick Return TD.

 

[Jon]

Only one penalty was called. Illegal touching. No ref said anything about illegal formation.

There were two flags on the play. The refs confirmed it after the game.

And I didn't say WHERE they line up is up to the refs. I said that he wasn't covered indicates the refs did not tell the defense 68 was eligible. It's not the reasopn for the penalty. it's just corroborating (circumstantial) evidence.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

There were two flags on the play. The refs confirmed it after the game.

And I didn't say WHERE they line up is up to the refs. I said that he wasn't covered indicates the refs did not tell the defense 68 was eligible. It's not the reasopn for the penalty. it's just corroborating (circumstantial) evidence.

the refs were wrong on all accounts. They gave the defense the wrong information and doubled down on their bullshit.

 

[Fire Queen]

one of the few things i was clinging to this season was the panthers scoring streak. they hadn’t been shut out since 2002 and there were some close calls this season but they managed to keep the second longest active streak in the nfl going for pretty long. and now it’s over

at least david tepper appears ready to step right into the Worst NFL Owner shoes that dan snyder vacated…

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39218610/panthers-owner-david-tepper-appears-toss-drink-fans

 

[Webster]

Just when I thought things couldn't get more embarrassing for the Panthers...

Risers and Fallers in Week 17’s road loss against the Jacksonville Jaguars

Who saw their stocks rise and fortunes fall in Week 17?

www.catscratchreader.com

David Tepper's beverages and goodwill
The Panthers have derailed since Tepper bought the team in 2018. He has done little to endear himself to the Carolina fanbase and on Sunday he embarrassed himself and the franchise. Toward the end of an embarrassing Panthers loss a seemingly angry Tepper appeared to throw his drink on a Jaguars fan seated below Tepper's suite.


Now, we don't have the entire context of what happened immediately before or after this incident and as of yet Tepper hasn't commented. In fairness to the Panthers owner, it wouldn't be surprising to learn that the Jags fan had said or done things throughout the game to provoke a response. But regardless of what the fan may have said or done, the video is a terrible look for Tepper. I'm planning to write something separate about Tepper's shortcomings as an owner, but needless to say his stock continues to fall among Panthers fans.

 

[Fool's Requiem]

No games tonight. Saturday and Sunday. only.

 

[Tubby23]

No games tonight. Saturday and Sunday. only.

Which sucks means I don't get to spend my Friday afternoon watching football

 

[Fire Queen]

i thought i had already seen rock bottom for this franchise (the brian st. pierre game) but. well. here we are