NFL 2022: The playoffs thread

Enix wrote:

CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP SUNDAY

NFC: Niners at Eagles
When: 3p Sunday
TV: Fox (Burkhardt/Olsen)
Line: Eagles -2, over/under 45.5

AFC: Bengals at Chiefs
When: 630p Sunday
TV: CBS (Nantz and the suddenly unbearable Romo)
Line: Chiefs -1.5, o/u 47.5

Updated odds via CBS Sports. The story points out that, assuming Mahomes starts Sunday, he'll become only the third QB in NFL history to start conference championship games in five straight years. He ties Stabler but trails Brady, who has eight.

The Chiefs, meanwhile, are the first team to play five straight home championship games. And Mahomes is the only QB to play in five conference championships before age 30. Whew.

The Niners, meanwhile, will play in an NFL-record 18th conference championship game.

Ow, my old hurts.

Oh look, the best stiff-arm the Cowboys had all night:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnKp4CZWQAYgWpl?format=jpg&name=medium)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/yaTxnaz.png)

As an Eagles fan, every time I see that, it generates a smile. It will never get old.

-BEP

Bummed that the Bills lost.
Nothing against the Bengals but I like watching the Bills more.
But that was a stomping. So the argument that last year was a fluke has all but evaporated.
The Bengals are elite and can easily take out anyone left. They are proven to just show up in the big games.

Rat Boy wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/yaTxnaz.png)

I saw this one today:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/AY0N0AF.jpg)

Can we talk about the Chase TD that wasn’t?? I’m not sure why the NFL continues to over complicate things. If you catch the ball. Get two feet down and then fall down from contact it should be a completed catch. You have that concept in other parts of the game why not the catch?? Why should a defender be able to continue once the receiver is on the ground to rip at the ball?

The running back can be hit milliseconds after a handoff and fumble since it’s considered a completed play (in that possession isn’t a consideration)

Stop making this way to complicated.

I've long been an advocate for two hands on ball + two feet = catch.

And the push back is always, "but then there'll be a bunch of fumbles from hits immediately after catches!"

To which I say, great. A rule tweak that benefits the defense. And it's not like fumbles are bad TV. They're exciting plays.

I don't get why avoiding the bang-bang fumble is considered so damn important that we have to make possession rules so ridiculous and vague just to avoid fumbles. Let the fumbles happen!

(I also think bobbling a ball should be considered part of the act of gaining possession - ie. if a receiver slightly bobbles the ball while their left foot is down, then secure the ball as their right foot is down but their left foot has come up, it should be considered a catch. But people are REALLY not ready to have that conversation.)

Jeff Wilson earned a $69k bonus for the 49ers advancing to the NFC Championship game. He'll earn another $82k if the Niners win and make it to the Super Bowl, and another $157k if the Niners win.

If none of that sounds terribly interesting you, allow me to remind you that Jeff Wilson has been a Miami Dolphin since week 9.

He's not alone either. Jaguars offensive lineman Blake Hance, who the Niners cut right before their week 8 game, is earning the same bonuses as Wilson, which are of course the same playoff bonuses as all the players who are actually 49ers right now.

Why is this? It's an obscure quirk of the playoff bonus rules. Players are eligible if:

(a) they're on the 53-man roster and have been for the last 3 games (nope),

(b) they're a veteran that was put on injured reserve during the season, and still under contract with the team (nope),

(c) they're a vested (4+ years) veteran that was put on injured reserve before the season, and are still under contract with the team (nope)

(d) they aren't on the roster, but were on the team's roster for at least 8 games, and they are not under contract with another team in the same conference (winner!)

Both Wilson and Hance were 49ers for 8 games, and were since acquired by AFC teams. Hance technically was cut before the week 8 game, but because he was cut so late in the week, he still earned credit (and pay) for the week (this was likely intentional on the 49ers' part, one of those tiny "do right by your guys" moves).

WHO GREENLIT A TOM BRADY MOVIE?

Paramount, apparently, with Brady as a producer.

*Legion* wrote:

I don't get why avoiding the bang-bang fumble is considered so damn important that we have to make possession rules so ridiculous and vague just to avoid fumbles. Let the fumbles happen!

Not that I necessarily disagree with your idea but wouldn't player safety be the major concern? You'd be creating a bunch of plays with people diving head-on towards each other.

Pink Stripes wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I don't get why avoiding the bang-bang fumble is considered so damn important that we have to make possession rules so ridiculous and vague just to avoid fumbles. Let the fumbles happen!

Not that I necessarily disagree with your idea but wouldn't player safety be the major concern? You'd be creating a bunch of plays with people diving head-on towards each other.

Players are already diving on that loose ball. They don't know if the receiver made all the steps for it to be called a catch or not. Calling those plays fumbles instead of incomplete passes isn't really going to move the needle in terms of how players react, just how the outcome is ruled afterwards. Especially now that refs are taught to let it play out rather than blow it dead.

Legion whats your take on the Kittle Helmet Catch play.. replays seem to show he was lined up as an ineligible receiver.

He was not ineligible. That is just Cowboys fans that don't know the rule.

The accusation is that both Juszczyk and Kittle were on the line of scrimmage, and thus Juszczyk would be "covering up" Kittle.

An eligible receiver is off the line of scrimmage if, according to Section 1, Article 6, paragraph a:

Players who are not on either end of their line or at least one yard behind it when the ball is snapped.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/kAHuzg6.png)

This is easy. The line of scrimmage is exactly the 21 yard line.

Kittle's hand and helmet both clearly cross the 20 yard line, meaning he is on the line of scrimmage

Juszczyk's hand and helmet are both clearly behind the 20 yard line, meaning he's more than 1 yard back, and thus not covering Kittle.

Juszczyk's alignment is very deliberate, putting him the minimum amount of distance back to still count as being off the line of scrimmage. It doesn't matter that he's not as far back as the wide receiver. It doesn't matter that Kittle is almost as far back. All that matters is each player's distance from the 21 yard line. If you're 35 inches back, you're on the line of scrimmage. If you're 37 inches back, you're off the line.

Cowboys fans aren't used to seeing this kind of formation creativity because when their coaches try to do something creative, it looks like this:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/apeoA7w.gif)

Was 69 Tackle eligible on the play…he seemed off the line as well…I’m fuzzy on that rule as well

My screengrab is from slightly after the snap, because that's the first frame of the YouTube video I found. (EDIT: Actually, McGlinchey is far enough back that there might be an argument that he's not forward enough. That's a separate issue from whether or not Juszczyk is covering or not covering Kittle, though.)

A player has to be FULLY behind the 20 yard line on this play to count as being off the line. It doesn't matter how far behind the 20 he is, it just matters that absolutely none of him crossed the 20. If his fingernail crosses the 20, he's on the line.

The 7th line of scrimmage player is the WR that's out of frame, above McGlinchey. That player is on the line and covering up McGlinchey.

I’ve seen this but it’s Twitter so who knows

https://twitter.com/veterans_i/statu...

I’m going to go watch the full replay and see for myself

TheGameguru wrote:

I’ve seen this but it’s Twitter so who knows

https://twitter.com/veterans_i/statu...

Yeah, that's what I was talking about with "Cowboys fans that don't know the rule".

If you're behind the 20, you're "at least one yard behind [the line] when the ball is snapped".

If you're "at least one yard behind [the line] when the ball is snapped", you can't be "covering up" a receiver. Period.

Also, he says "he's blocking" as if that means something. An eligible receiver can block and still catch a pass after that. That happens like a dozen times a game, with tight ends and backs chipping before leaking out.

Edited one of my previous comments. If there is an issue on this play, it's McGlinchey on the other side of the line not being forward enough. I mixed up one pre-snap look with another, he doesn't go down into a 3-point stance before this snap. On this play, he's lined up from a standing position, and depending on the angle, he might not be breaking the 20 yard line.

If he weren't on the line, the Niners would have only 6 guys on the line, and that would not be sufficient.

However, that would be unrelated as to whether or not Kittle was an eligible receiver on the play.

Also, looking at other snaps, he's lined up similarly far back. He's being given some extra leeway because by number he's an ineligible receiver unless he reports. This does pop up from time to time, where tackles push the boundary of how far back the officials will let them line up while still being counted as on the line. With that, you're getting into the gray area of rule enforcement versus letter of the law. The 5 offensive linemen lining up in their normal positions are given a bit more slack than if they came out in some exotic formation.

So, if someone wants to make the argument that McGlinchey is too far back, they can. Of course, it takes about a minute to find shots of Cowboys tackle Tyron Smith being similarly far back in his stance.

Patriots hiring Bill O'Brien to be offensive coordinator.

Mac Jones is "very excited" to have O'Brien as coordinator.

It's unclear how much of that excitement is about BOB himself and how much of it is about the coordinator being "not Matt Patricia".

Bill O'... head coach in waiting?

UpToIsomorphism wrote:

Bill O'... head coach in waiting?

People are saying the same thing about Jerod Mayo so who knows.

I'm definitely excited both about the "not Matt Patricia" and the fact that it is BOB. He was the obvious choice for the job, it was just unclear whether he was actually available and interested.

Now people get to write even more words about whether the Pats should try to trade for Hopkins and whether or not he'd agree to that.

Rodgers trade rumors are already starting.

Schefty claims that it's a "real scenario" that Rodgers gets moved, and that the Packers don't want to send him to an NFC team. Peter King suggests that the trade compensation would be two 1sts.

I'd have a hard time trading two 1sts fora quarterback that I'm not certain would stick around for more than 1 year. Especially if that year doesn't result in a deep playoff run, or if my head coach says something that makes Rodgers think he's one of the lizard people or something.

I expect Green Bay would need to be flexible on the compensation. I don't blame them if two 1sts is their opening demand just so that they don't lowball themselves though. I'll be kinda shocked if there's a buyer at that price, unless Rodgers can convince that team that he intends to play out at least most of his contract.

*Legion* wrote:

I'll be kinda shocked if there's a buyer at that price.

IMAGE(https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/U7DA54RSQQI6ZABWPWZFLP7ROY.jpg)

Oh nonononononono
Hell no!

The time to nab Rodgers was moving up one pick back when he was drafted.
But of course Snyder would do something stupid like offering Rodgers a max 3-5 year contract...

Washington should see what they have in Sam Howell. They should have done it for more than one game this year. There was zero reason to play Carson Wentz against Cleveland, just to watch him throw 3 INTs.

Maybe sign a guy like Jacoby Brissett as a veteran fallback option. And if it doesn't work out, move in position to target a QB in next year's expected-to-be better QB class.

You assume the Communists have any brains at all. Recent and not-so-recent evidence suggests otherwise.

And if it doesn't work out, move in position to target a QB in next year's expected-to-be better QB class.

And select another Dwayne Haskins...
Our record drafting QBs is not great. Under the best circumstances, they play well for another team.