# 2011 NFL Discussion Thread



## JACKIEGAGA

Welcome back football!

We can discuss the 2011 season here.

Go Big Blue.


----------



## Rich

JACKIEGAGA said:


> Welcome back football!
> 
> We can discuss the 2011 season here.
> 
> Go Big Blue.


Great news! Wonder how much money I'll lose this year. Parity really sucks. But I do enjoy it and I root for both the Giants and Jets. Been a Jets fan since before they were the Jets, but I've gotten interested in the Giants in the last few years too.

Rich


----------



## stevenv

Are we ready for some FOOTBALL???

GO CHIEFS!:icon_da:


----------



## fluffybear

stevenv said:


> Are we ready for some FOOTBALL???
> 
> GO CHIEFS!:icon_da:


Actually No! I am sick and tired of these whiney players & owners complaining about how little money they make and this last lockout only reaffirms my commitment to boycott the NFL.


----------



## sigma1914

Thread crapping already? 

Anyway... LET'S GET THE SEASON STARTED!!!!!

I'll make my SB predictions after free agency. My surprise team of 2011...The Lions.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

sigma1914 said:


> My surprise team of 2011...The Lions.


The Lions had some tough losses last year.


----------



## Tom Robertson

*Let There Be Football!*


----------



## Rich

Think we might be jumping the gun? I was in the car an hour or so ago and the union reps hadn't voted to approve the contract. As hard as it might be to believe, reps sometimes throw monkey wrenches into the works.


Rich


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

rich584 said:


> Think we might be jumping the gun? I was in the car an hour or so ago and the union reps hadn't voted to approve the contract. As hard as it might be to believe, reps sometimes throw monkey wrenches into the works.
> 
> Rich


Rich you are right it is not official.

The NFLPA exeutive committee are meeting and need to approve it, then they would recommend it to the 32 player team reps for approval


----------



## Rich

JACKIEGAGA said:


> Rich you are right it is not official.
> 
> The NFLPA exeutive committee are meeting and need to approve it, then they would recommend it to the 32 player team reps for approval


Wonder how the rep's voting works. Hope they only need a majority for it to pass. This is one of the problems I've always had with the unions I belonged to. Too few people have too much power and don't always exercise that power as the folks that voted them into those positions want them to.

But, I'm probably being too pessimistic again, I sure hope so.

Rich


----------



## Tom Robertson

rich584 said:


> Wonder how the rep's voting works. Hope they only need a majority for it to pass. This is one of the problems I've always had with the unions I belonged to. Too few people have too much power and don't always exercise that power as the folks that voted them into those positions want them to.
> 
> But, I'm probably being too pessimistic again, I sure hope so.
> 
> Rich


Word on the street (ok, the expert "talking heads") is that if the executive committee votes yes then the players reps will and then the players will.

I think there were two reasons for the NFLPA delay. One is to negotiate the stuff that really hadn't been finalized and the other was to really ramp up the player education process. So I'm expecting all will be good. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

We have football everything is approved.

Woo Hoo


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Time to break out two of my favorite jerseys:










and


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Football coming back just in time for my trip to Lambeau this week at the Shareholders meeting...WOO HOO!


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Don't forget to sign Favre


----------



## hdtvfan0001

JACKIEGAGA said:


> Don't forget to sign Favre


Not needed...they already have tackling dummies.


----------



## Rich

JACKIEGAGA said:


> We have football everything is approved.
> 
> Woo Hoo


For sure this time? Great!

Rich


----------



## Tom Robertson

All 32 player reps voted for the deal, it is as done as it can get until the players vote this week. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> All 32 player reps voted for the deal, it is as done as it can get until the players vote this week.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


MSNBC also reported that all the plaintiffs in the 10-player suit against the NFL also approved the deal.

There would seem to be no impediments left to finishing the CBA agreement in writing pretty soon.

In the mean time...look for the next 3-5 days to be the most intense payer-signing flurry in NFL history...trades, free agents, rookies...all that stuff.


----------



## HDJulie

I read that the Bengals are starting their camp 2 days later than planned (in an article where they say they will not trade Palmer). Anyone know why they aren't starting when they were supposed to (and this is the delayed time where 10 teams start tomorrow, 10 more Thursday, 10 more Friday, then the other 2 Sunday).


----------



## Hutchinshouse

sigma1914 said:


> *Thread crapping already*?
> 
> Anyway... LET'S GET THE SEASON STARTED!!!!!
> 
> I'll make my SB predictions after free agency. My surprise team of 2011...The Lions.


This is an "NFL Discussion Thread". Fluffybear's post is spot on topic.

I agree with Fluffybear. Billionaires fighting millionaires. :lol: In this economy they have the audacity to complain. :lol:

Now, for the peeps that love football, congrats! :icon_da:


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Looks like Kolb to the Cardinals

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post?id=42301


----------



## oldschoolecw

There saying on Boston radio that, Ochocinco sent a message to a Twitter follower suggesting he's going to "enjoy clam chowder," an obvious reference to New England.

Edit done deal http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story...ad-ochocinco-new-england-patriots-source-says


----------



## sigma1914

oldschoolecw said:


> There saying on Boston radio that, Ochocinco sent a message to a Twitter follower suggesting he's going to "enjoy clam chowder," an obvious reference to New England.


http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/

Yeah, he's traded. Such BS...I hate the Pats.


----------



## wcwman18

Sunday Ticket is crazy priced this year


----------



## Rich

sigma1914 said:


> http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/
> 
> Yeah, he's traded. Such BS...I hate the Pats.


Yup, Bellichick's building a monster and he's doing it quickly. Sure would like to see the Jet's get busy.

Rich


----------



## Steve Robertson

sigma1914 said:


> http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/
> 
> Yeah, he's traded. Such BS...I hate the Pats.


Thedy probably don't like you either.


----------



## sigma1914

Eagles get Asomugha....WOW!!


----------



## jazzyd971fm

sigma1914 said:


> Eagles get Asomugha....WOW!!


Didn't see that one comin' :lol: This is going to be a crazy year !!!!!


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Let's get this season started. Peyton Manning another surgery wow, joshjr what is your take on this.


----------



## kfcrosby

Surely NBC will not pre-empt the game with the Presidential address ??!! ???


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

I don't think so


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Few more minutes till kickoff


----------



## Dr_J

I don't like these kickoffs from the 35. There's going to be a lot more touchbacks and fewer breakout returns. I know the league did this to reduce the incidence of concussions, and it's hard to walk the line between excitement and safety.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Dr_J said:


> I don't like these kickoffs from the 35. There's going to be a lot more touchbacks and fewer breakout returns. I know the league did this to reduce the incidence of concussions, and it's hard to walk the line between excitement and safety.


They should just put it on the 20


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Was trying to find more history since I remembered it , but couldn't nail down the facts...

regarding the kickoff...

Until 1994, kickoffs in the NFL were from the 35-yard line. They moved it to the 30 to increase likelihood of returns for more action as kickers had become good enough to kick touchbacks more often... but there was concern then of potential increased risk to players.

So... the move in 2011 to go back to 35-yard line kickoffs isn't new... it is essentially rolling back the rule to an older one. I think a lot of people playing and watching the game have completely forgotten this point.

I grant you that today's kickers should be even better and more likely to kick into the end zone than in 1994... and I like the kickoffs and potential for return.

In tonight's game we had a penalty enforced on a kickoff that resulted in a re-try from the 30! so... that is going to happen a couple of times each weekend too I suspect.


----------



## Dr_J

For many years, kickoffs were from the 40. As kickers improved, it was moved to the 35 and then to the 30, and now back to the 35.

Lambeau had only two touchbacks all of last season, and there's been at least double that tonight.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Dr_J said:


> For many years, kickoffs were from the 40. As kickers improved, it was moved to the 35 and then to the 30, and now back to the 35.
> 
> Lambeau had only two touchbacks all of last season, and there's been at least double that tonight.


Thanks... I was thinking it probably had been farther up field than the 35 before too.

Interestingly... tonight New Orleans kicked off from the 35 one time and was offsides... so had to re-kick from the 30... and that kick went into the endzone for a touchback!

Truth to tell... IF teams put a premium on it, they could probably kick deep into the end zone on virtually every kickoff anyway, even from the 30... so I'm not sure that it makes that much of a difference moving to the 35.

We won't really know until the end of the season and we see how the statistics stack up over the course of a whole season.

I am remembering the new OT rules they put in for last season in the playoffs... and then we didn't have any OT games in the playoffs to test it... so at least with the kickoff change, we get to see how it works!


----------



## RACJ2

JACKIEGAGA said:


> They should just put it on the 20


And eliminate the opportunity for an onside kick, really?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RACJ2 said:


> And eliminate the opportunity for an onside kick, really?


I like the onside kick... but since a lot of people argue against changing overtime rules by saying that "if a team is good enough they had plenty of time to win in regulation"... you could make the same argument for onside kicks... IF you are good enough, stop the team from advancing OR cause a turnover to get the ball back.


----------



## Dave

Both GB and NO looked good Thurs. I think both will be contenders this year. Brees had a good 2 min drill while Rodgers had a excellent game with the passing and running games.


----------



## sigma1914

Dave said:


> Both GB and NO *offenses *looked good Thurs. I think both will be contenders this year. Brees had a good 2 min drill while Rodgers had a excellent game with the passing and running games.


Corrected.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

In a game like that... it is hard to rate the defense's performance.

Game #1, there is likely to be some rust... with an experienced team that means one side might be better than the other.. and both teams were going against potent offenses.

In fact... you could argue that neither team will face potentially as good of an offense again the rest of the season, until the playoffs... I haven't looked at the schedule to see if either team plays Philly or New England... but outside of those two teams, I'm not sure there are other teams with as much potential on offense.

So... if you're GB, you take the win and work on your defense... if you're NO you aren't "happy" about the loss, but figure you might not face another team that good all season... work on your defense and move on.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Dave said:


> Both GB and NO *had bad defenses* Thurs. I think both will be contenders this year. Brees had a good 2 min drill while Rodgers had a excellent game with the passing and running games.


corrected 

:lol:


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> ...
> In fact... you could argue that neither team will face potentially as good of an offense again the rest of the season, until the playoffs... I haven't looked at the schedule to see if either team plays Philly or New England... but outside of those two teams, I'm not sure there are other teams with as much potential on offense.
> ...


Saints have some opponents with high power offenses... Atlanta twice, Houston, Indy (if Manning is back by week 7), Giants, and maybe Minnesota.

Packers play Atlanta, San Diego, Giants, and KC.

There's some good offenses out there and a couple young offenses looking to turn the corner like St. Louis and Detroit.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> Saints have some opponents with high power offenses... Atlanta twice, Houston, Indy (if Manning is back by week 7), Giants, and maybe Minnesota.
> 
> Packers play Atlanta, San Diego, Giants, and KC.
> 
> There's some good offenses out there and a couple young offenses looking to turn the corner like St. Louis and Detroit.


But realistically... how many of those offenses would you really rank up at the top?

I forgot about San Diego... but like I said, I didn't look at the schedule to see who was on tap.

Manning looks to be done for the year, frankly. With the doctors saying 2-3 months for this kind of surgery... I expect nothing much from Indy, and that's a shame.

I also forgot about Atlanta... and shame on me for that, because Atlanta and New Orleans are in the same division... so I should have counted them.

Even still.. I don't know how many "top" potentials I would say...

In no certain order... Green Bay, New Orleans, San Diego, Philadelphia, New England, and Atlanta... Sure, on "any given Sunday" anyone can win... but on a consistent game-by-game basis... I'm not sure I would put anyone else in the league consistently as high as these six teams.

Houston has potential... if they get their roster healthy AND if they don't underperform like they have the last few years.. but I can't put them up their yet.


----------



## sigma1914

Houston has potential? :lol: :lol: They were the 3rd best offense (yards) last year, 4th the year before, and 3rd the year before.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> Houston has potential? :lol: :lol: They were the 3rd best offense (yards) last year, 4th the year before, and 3rd the year before.


But what was their record? Did they make the playoffs?

Even San Diego didn't muster much above .500 last year and I like them... San Diego was #1 offense and #1 defense, but so horribly bad on special teams that it made up for being good in everything else.

I can't think too highly of Houston until they actually do something.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Today's the day we see how much rust remains with teams.

Thursday looked like two NFC contenders in mid-season form going at it.

I suspect some of the games will include teams that look like they are in the minor leagues in comparison.

After all that - its only week one.


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> But what was their record? Did they make the playoffs?
> 
> Even San Diego didn't muster much above .500 last year and I like them... San Diego was #1 offense and #1 defense, but so horribly bad on special teams that it made up for being good in everything else.
> 
> I can't think too highly of Houston until they actually do something.


You never mentioned records or team performance...we were discussing offensive powers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> You never mentioned records or team performance...we were discussing offensive powers.


Yeah... I know... but it is just too hard for me to separate that with some teams.

It's hard to tell, for example, in Houston's case... if they truly were an offensive "machine" last season... OR that their defense was so bad that they threw caution to the wind and got more possessions to try.

In basketball, lots of bad teams can score a lot by not playing defense... I grant that doesn't directly work the same way in football... but there are sometimes similarities.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Rough day for Ben Roethlisberger


----------



## stevenv

REALLY rough day for the Chiefs...:eek2:


----------



## braven

JACKIEGAGA said:


> Rough day for Ben Roethlisberger


Not going to lie. I love seeing Pittsburgh get worked over.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Almost all the teams we were earlier discussing about being potentially good... looked kind of bad today... even a couple who won didn't necessarily look great, and some lost horribly.

It was an odd day.

At least the nightcap was good, though... I almost had the final right even...


Spoiler



I had picked the Jets 27-21 on another site.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Hate the new rule on reviewing every touchdown. Why don't they just make them optional for the opposing couch. Yesterday they review a Maurice Jones-Drew 20 yards touchdown run right down the middle of the field.






ps Not a full review but annoying anyway.


----------



## Rich

Stewart Vernon said:


> Almost all the teams we were earlier discussing about being potentially good... looked kind of bad today... even a couple who won didn't necessarily look great, and some lost horribly.
> 
> It was an odd day.
> 
> At least the nightcap was good, though... I almost had the final right even...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I had picked the Jets 27-21 on another site.


That was a good game.

Rich


----------



## Stewart Vernon

yosoyellobo said:


> Hate the new rule on reviewing every touchdown. Why don't they just make them optional for the opposing couch. Yesterday they review a Maurice Jones-Drew 20 yards touchdown run right down the middle of the field.


While I wish they could speed it up... I like it. In college they review every play, but they don't stop the action all the time... but they do review every play.

The problem with the challenge format has always been that it was limited... so you have to choose whether or not to challenge a bad call. You really shouldn't have to choose to let one bad call stand in case you later need to challenge a worse call.

Scoring plays are a nice clean place when action is stopped for a bit anyway and it doesn't screw with the flow of a drive... so I like them doing this... it is a step in the right direction.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Stewart Vernon said:


> While I wish they could speed it up... I like it. In college they review every play, but they don't stop the action all the time... but they do review every play.
> 
> The problem with the challenge format has always been that it was limited... so you have to choose whether or not to challenge a bad call. You really shouldn't have to choose to let one bad call stand in case you later need to challenge a worse call.
> 
> Scoring plays are a nice clean place when action is stopped for a bit anyway and it doesn't screw with the flow of a drive... so I like them doing this... it is a step in the right direction.


I don't mean a normal challenge. After a touchdown the the opposing team indicate if the would like it to be look at. The official could look at it or not. The difference is that for every 100 touchdown they might only have to look at two or three instead of every one of them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

yosoyellobo said:


> I don't mean a normal challenge. After a touchdown the the opposing team indicate if the would like it to be look at. The official could look at it or not. The difference is that for every 100 touchdown they might only have to look at two or three instead of every one of them.


I guess what I'm saying is... NCAA Division I college football has people at every game reviewing every play all the time... and they are able to do it quickly enough in most cases that they don't interrupt the flow except when they need to check multiple camera angles.

It seems like the NFL should be able to employ people to do the same thing, at least on the scoring plays where both teams have to swap out their players for the extra point or two-point conversions anyway... it seems like they should have time enough to decide most of the time quickly whether it is clear or questionable.

It probably will get better as the season goes along and they get used to doing it.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Stewart Vernon said:


> I guess what I'm saying is... NCAA Division I college football has people at every game reviewing every play all the time... and they are able to do it quickly enough in most cases that they don't interrupt the flow except when they need to check multiple camera angles.
> 
> It seems like the NFL should be able to employ people to do the same thing, at least on the scoring plays where both teams have to swap out their players for the extra point or two-point conversions anyway... it seems like they should have time enough to decide most of the time quickly whether it is clear or questionable.
> 
> It probably will get better as the season goes along and they get used to doing it.


I guess we are on the same page. I would love a collage style replay for the NFL.


----------



## RACJ2

yosoyellobo said:


> Hate the new rule on reviewing every touchdown. Why don't they just make them optional for the opposing couch. Yesterday they review a Maurice Jones-Drew 20 yards touchdown run right down the middle of the field.
> ps Not a full review but annoying anyway.


I agree with the opposing coach optional suggestion. Although I can put up with a minor delay, if it means they get the call right on a TD.


----------



## kikkenit2

Stewart Vernon said:


> I guess what I'm saying is... NCAA Division I college football has people at every game reviewing every play all the time... and they are able to do it quickly enough in most cases that they don't interrupt the flow except when they need to check multiple camera angles.


This has slowed the game down some, but at least they always get the play correct unless it was super close to call or not the exact ideal camera angles to determine what happened. In the nfl after a coach uses up the challenges the league just stands down when later and usually more important wrong calls are exposed to the viewing public. This is a flaw. Just penalize teams 10 yards or so for wrong recalls and don't let them run out. And in the last 2 minutes when only the league decides, give me a break!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Another thing that hit me last night... offsetting penalties resulting in a "do over".

I don't think some offsetting penalties are really offsetting.

One example from last night... Offensive holding AND Defensive unnecessary roughness were called and deemed offsetting.

Both were against rules and give unfair advantage... but the defensive penalty also posed a risk of injury in addition to being unfair.

I would like to see some kind of measure of offsetting penalties where one penalty can be worse than the other and still partially offset.

Like if the roughness would have been 15 yards + 1st down automatic, and the holding would have been 10 yards, replay the down... I would like to see either 15-10 for 5 yards and replay the down OR no yardage change but automatic 1st down.

Basically... I'd like to see unequal offsetting penalties not just cancel each other out all the time.


----------

