View Full Version : As NFL tries to mimic Peyton Manning, offenses are on a record pace
Denver Native (Carol)
11-16-2013, 05:28 PM
The NFL has never been more of a quarterback’s game than it is today. Scoring is on a record pace, quarterbacks are throwing more touchdown passes than ever before, and as a result, television ratings are booming.
The NFL has Denver’s Peyton Manning to thank.
There was a time quarterbacks — from Slinging Sammy Baugh in the 1940s, to Johnny Unitas in the 1950s to Joe Namath in the 1960s — called their own plays and controlled the flow of the game. Then coaches took the game from the field generals by sending in plays and leaving it to defenses to win championships.
rest - http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/16/4626608/as-nfl-tries-to-mimic-peyton-manning.html
More like the NFLs trying to manufacture Brady clones with things like the Brady Rule to bubblewrap passers and receivers, while flagging offensive linemen for open field cut blocks in the running game and RBs for leading with their helmets. None of that's seemed to benefit Manning much; unless we put him back in a Colts jersey so Vickerson gets flagged for walking by HIM, guys will keep diving at PFMs ankles with impunity.
More like the NFLs trying to manufacture Brady clones with things like the Brady Rule to bubblewrap passers and receivers, while flagging offensive linemen for open field cut blocks in the running game and RBs for leading with their helmets. None of that's seemed to benefit Manning much; unless we put him back in a Colts jersey so Vickerson gets flagged for walking by HIM, guys will keep diving at PFMs ankles with impunity.
Jesus Jones dude.
Oh and BTW, how many flags have been thrown for offensive players leading with their helmets this year? My guess is less than 10. Hardly a noteworthy topic to include in your banter.
Jesus Jones dude.
Oh and BTW, how many flags have been thrown for offensive players leading with their helmets this year? My guess is less than 10. Hardly a noteworthy topic to include in your banter.
If it's as many as one it's a net detriment to running that encourages still more passing, because receivers aren't (at least primarily) coached to lower their head to break tackles.
If it's as many as one it's a net detriment to running that encourages still more passing, because receivers aren't (at least primarily) coached to lower their head to break tackles.
Peyton Manning got a holding penalty.
If it's as many as one it's a net detriment to running that encourages still more passing, because receivers aren't (at least primarily) coached to lower their head to break tackles.
Joel, why you no grammar this sentence?
Joel, why you no grammar this sentence?
It might've been easier to follow with a comma after "running," but I don't believe the statement has any true grammatical errors. To clarify: Even ONE penalty for ANY offensive player leading with their helmet is a net detriment to running, at the expense of passing, for the reason that running backs have long been coached to lower their heads to break tackles, but it's not usually not emphasized much (if at all) for receivers.
Personally, I don't understand all the new rules about defensive OR offensive players leading with their helmets: Spearing's spearing, and it's been illegal for ages; we don't need to ban ALL contact with helmets, and if we aren't going to consistently enforce a rule already on the books creating a new selectively enforced rule only complicates matters without improving them one whit.
It might've been easier to follow with a comma after "running," but I don't believe the statement has any true grammatical errors. To clarify: Even ONE penalty for ANY offensive player leading with their helmet is a net detriment to running, at the expense of passing, for the reason that running backs have long been coached to lower their heads to break tackles, but it's not usually not emphasized much (if at all) for receivers.
Personally, I don't understand all the new rules about defensive OR offensive players leading with their helmets: Spearing's spearing, and it's been illegal for ages; we don't need to ban ALL contact with helmets, and if we aren't going to consistently enforce a rule already on the books creating a new selectively enforced rule only complicates matters without improving them one whit.
Joel, why u respond serious to joking post with copious amounts of words?
BroncoWave
11-16-2013, 10:17 PM
Joel, why u respond serious to joking post with copious amounts of words?
Joel only respond to post with copious amounts of words.
Joel only respond to post with copious amounts of words.
BW, y u tell truth?
BroncoWave
11-16-2013, 10:21 PM
BW, y u tell truth?
They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
Joel, why u respond serious to joking post with copious amounts of words?
Because Poes Law, that's why. ;)
Because Poes Law, that's why. ;)
Quote the Raven, Ray Lewis is innocent?
Quote the Raven, Ray Lewis is innocent?
Nathan, not Edgar Allen, though plea bargains=/=innocence in either case.
It might've been easier to follow with a comma after "running," but I don't believe the statement has any true grammatical errors. To clarify: Even ONE penalty for ANY offensive player leading with their helmet is a net detriment to running, at the expense of passing, for the reason that running backs have long been coached to lower their heads to break tackles, but it's not usually not emphasized much (if at all) for receivers. Personally, I don't understand all the new rules about defensive OR offensive players leading with their helmets: Spearing's spearing, and it's been illegal for ages; we don't need to ban ALL contact with helmets, and if we aren't going to consistently enforce a rule already on the books creating a new selectively enforced rule only complicates matters without improving them one whit.
"Spearing" isn't the same as leading with the helmet.
If you can grasp the rules how the hell do you expect anyone to believe you grasp any other aspect of football?
Nathan, not Edgar Allen, though plea bargains=/=innocence in either case.
Did you know that you can enter a plea bargain, maintain your innocence, and inform the judge that you're doing it for strategic, or pragmatic reasons?
Quote the Raven, Ray Lewis is innocent?
*Quoth
"Spearing" isn't the same as leading with the helmet.
That's technically true and precisely my point: Just because someone leads with their helmet doesn't make it a spear, but it shouldn't be illegal unless it is. There's a difference between a tackler or ball carrier intentionally hitting someone with a helmet and simply trying to ensure there's more than a facemask separating them. When we reach the point where guys must make certain their helmets don't make first contact, rather than simply refraining from deliberately impaling opponents on them, we've gone too far.
If you can grasp the rules how the hell do you expect anyone to believe you grasp any other aspect of football?
I grasp the rules and many other aspects of the game, thanks.
Did you know that you can enter a plea bargain, maintain your innocence, and inform the judge that you're doing it for strategic, or pragmatic reasons?
The practical difference between a guilty and nolo contendre plea is negligible but, regardless, even acquittal=/=innocence. We don't find people innocent, we find they aren't guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, I'm familiar with how THAT game is played, too, though it's fortunately never been relevant to me personally; I just happened to have a legal secretary for a mom, then marry one.
The practical difference between a guilty and nolo contendre plea is negligible but, regardless, even acquittal=/=innocence. We don't find people innocent, we find they aren't guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, I'm familiar with how THAT game is played, too, though it's fortunately never been relevant to me personally; I just happened to have a legal secretary for a mom, then marry one.
I think in our system, the absence of guilt does equal innocent. However, if you're wrongly convicted and then released, you're still considered to be guilty via societal flaws. A lot of nuanced opinions can be formed on the subject, I think.
I think in our system, the absence of guilt does equal innocent. However, if you're wrongly convicted and then released, you're still considered to be guilty via societal flaws. A lot of nuanced opinions can be formed on the subject, I think.
Well, it's presumption of innocence, at least in theory, but presumption isn't necessarily actuality; we must simply treat it the same. It's not a perfect system in that respect or the one you cited (nor a number of others.) It's just the best possible system we've devised, so far, anyway. I'm neither a judge nor cop though, and, so long as it doesn't prompt abuse of power, even they have the liberty to believe Ray Lewis and OJ both commited the murders of which they were accused, plea bargains and acquittals notwithstanding.
Generally, I concur with widely quoted section of John Adams' summation at the Boston Massacre trial, but I'm not suggesting Lewis or anyone else be executed: I'm just sick of being told what a great humanitarian and role model he is just because he copped a plea after destroying evidence, then cited his SB Ring as proof GOD has declared him innocent. Kind of took conceited impenitence to new lows. :tsk:
Well, it's presumption of innocence, at least in theory, but presumption isn't necessarily actuality; we must simply treat it the same. It's not a perfect system in that respect or the one you cited (nor a number of others.) It's just the best possible system we've devised, so far, anyway. I'm neither a judge nor cop though, and, so long as it doesn't prompt abuse of power, even they have the liberty to believe Ray Lewis and OJ both commited the murders of which they were accused, plea bargains and acquittals notwithstanding.
Generally, I concur with widely quoted section of John Adams' summation at the Boston Massacre trial, but I'm not suggesting Lewis or anyone else be executed: I'm just sick of being told what a great humanitarian and role model he is just because he copped a plea after destroying evidence, then cited his SB Ring as proof GOD has declared him innocent. Kind of took conceited impenitence to new lows. :tsk:
But if the presumption is treated the same way, in function it is the same, is it not? In our system, you are innocent until you are proven guilty. If you are not proven guilty, then you maintain the innocence that you never lost. Perhaps I'm just a silly idealist.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.