NFL 2018 Offseason Thread

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY0-EqFVQAAKBRY.jpg)

"We've replaced our old, unclear catch rule with a new, unclear catch rule; let's see if anybody notices."

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

"We've replaced our old, unclear catch rule with a new, unclear catch rule; let's see if anybody notices."

Haha yep, can't wait on the endless debates on if the player had "Control" and the "ability to perform" a catch act.

It actually thought it was pretty clear before but it just didn't align with what people saw as a catch. Or in other words, people just didn't like NFL's definition of what a catch was.

When I saw a ball rotate, after making contact with the ground, I could say that won't be ruled a catch. Now I will have no idea on how they are going to rule.

Forgot to paste this in.

I'm glad they're making it so these two CLEAR CATCHES are going to be catches under the new rules, but this appears to be them using a bandaid to stop a flood. I'd much rather they find a way to re-write the catch in general than recycling garbage.

I thought the old rule was perfectly fine; you're going to have some arbitrary standard for "catch", so make it clear what should be a catch. The problem was it wasn't being applied vaguely consistently.

There's no catch rule in rugby. Just sayin'.

garion333 wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/j6oTKsv.jpg)

I still want it to be just #1 and #2.

Actually, what I think should happen is this:

(a) Perform #1 and #2 and then hit the ground or go out of bounds (potentially losing the ball) = catch
(b) Perform #1 and #2 and lose ball without yet hitting ground or going out of bounds = incompletion
(c) Perform #1 and #2 and #3 and lose ball without yet hitting ground or going out of bounds = fumble

The core of the catch problem is what constitutes possession. Making it lenient enough for "that should be a catch" plays to be catches then becomes too lenient to prevent a bunch of catch-and-fumble plays.

So stop treating possession like a single state. Make it two states. A more permissive one immediately after a would-be catch, which can only be a catch or incomplete, and a "stronger" state after a catch and move, at which point loss of the ball can be a fumble.

I would much rather have referees squinting at fumbles to try and knock them down to incompletions, instead of having them squint at catches to try and knock them down to incompletions.

Yeah 3.3. seems like where we will continue to get the unending replays. "Could he have performed a "football move"?"

Yep. And since I know the league won't just tolerate catch-and-fumble plays like I would prefer, I think it would be a big win to at least shift the nitpicky judgement calls to would-be catch-and-fumble plays instead of routine catches, as the former happens much less frequently than the latter.

Instead of treating the routine play with intense scrutiny, take the plays that you're afraid of happening and make THEM the ones that get the intense scrutiny.

tboon wrote:

Yeah 3.3. seems like where we will continue to get the unending replays. "Could he have performed a "football move"?"

Also, "control" is pretty vague and seems ripe for all types of interpretation especially in a catch tackle bang-bang play. Next year is going to be the year of the controversial fumble.

Edit:

*Legion* wrote:

Instead of treating the routine play with intense scrutiny, take the plays that you're afraid of happening and make THEM the ones that get the intense scrutiny.

I was typing my post when you posted yours but isn't this just passing the controversial buck to another play? Nothing will be clear and you will still have people whining Monday mornings. Unless you define control to be two hands on the ball at any point.

EvilDead wrote:

I was typing my post when you posted yours but isn't this just passing the controversial buck to another play?

Yes, it is. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

The NFL is unwilling to remove the ambiguity. We should recognize this by now. Even in their proposal, it remains. So once we accept that reality, the realistic goal should then be how to minimize and mitigate it.

My proposal removes the ambiguity from the common plays (routine catches and incompletions) and instead places the burden on the less common play (catch-and-fumble).

*Legion* wrote:

My proposal removes the ambiguity from the common plays (routine catches and incompletions) and instead places the burden on the less common play (catch-and-fumble).

I imagine, if this rule passes, it will become a bit more common especially slant routes. I'm thinking of those plays where player gets two hands on it in stride, takes a step, begins to turn head downfield and gets popped. From my understanding this would now be a catch.

Yeah, taking a step would make that a catch, as I understand the new rule.

The problem is when, in that scenario, the player has two hands on the ball, gets both feet down and gets popped, the ball comes out. Could he have made a football move? If so, catch, if not, no catch. What's a football move? Could Jerry Rice back in the day have made a football move? What about some shlub from the Yuckaneers?

What I'm proposing really isn't even a shift in the catch-and-fumble rules. More accurately, what I'm suggesting is removing the need for a football move to call a catch, while keeping the need for a football move to call a fumble.

Because really, the ambiguity of possession already exists on catch-and-fumble plays too, I'm not exactly creating new ambiguity there. It's more that my fix is to create a possession state that exists prior to a football move, in which only catches or incomplete can happen. After a football move, fumbles are on the table too, and that's really just status quo.

I agree that 1 + 2 = catch and f*ck the football move nebulosity.
But I want to further that if 1 + 2 = catch then any bobble or loss of control = fumble.
So finger tips + 2 feet (toe drag or planted) = possession and loss of control trying to bring the catch in = fumble
1 handed + 2 feet = possession and loss of control putting the other hand on the ball = fumble
Pinned + 2 feet = possession

And then we can argue all we want on the semantics of when control happens and when 2 feet happens but if at any point they coincide, its a catch. We can also argue about pinned but pinned should be not whether it is moving but whether the ball is still pinned to the body or separated from the body.

Blah blah blah Bucs trade for JPP.

Yah you know me!
Oh wait, wrong thread

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Blah blah blah Bucs trade for JPP.

I think I should feel a little worried about this.

OTOH, his contract and Mike Evans' mean that the Bucs won't be able to afford O-linemen or DBs not named Miko. So I guess it evens out?

Enix wrote:

OTOH, his contract and Mike Evans' mean that the Bucs won't be able to afford O-linemen or DBs not named Miko. So I guess it evens out?

You overestimate the Bucs' cap situation. Even with Evans and JPP under contract, they still have $32 million of cap space, 8th most.

Obviously, it helps that Jameis is still on his rookie deal. But they've smartly front-loaded Mike Evans' deal such that he has cap hits of $18m and $20m these first two years (Winston's last normal contracted year plus his option year), and then his numbers drop to $16.7m, $12.25m, $14m and $14.5m, in the years where they'll start having to pay Winston at a market cap value.

Also, they've already added an offensive lineman in center Ryan Jensen, which should help a good bit (moves Ali Marpet back to guard). And if they ever find an offensive lineman worth paying, they can cut JR Sweezy without much dead cap, and have enough money to pay for a decent lineman.

Tampa's doing pretty well cap-wise, and they shouldn't have to tear up their roster once they have to pay Jameis (especially since they'll likely be rolling some of this unused cap space until they sign Jameis, and then front-load it using that space). If they suck, it will be from the guys they invested in under-performing, not an inability to afford guys.

It disgusts me to deliver good news about Milky Dan's team, but I have to be honest.

*Legion* wrote:

It disgusts me to deliver good news about Milky Dan's team, but I have to be honest. :(

Glad to see the Bucs have plenty of cap space to sign 4-5 kickers!

One for long-range FGs, one for chippies, a left-footed punter (for right-handed returners), a right-footed punter (for left-handed returners), a kickoff specialist for turf, a specialist for grass and a specialist for outdoor night games.

It's a thing, I hear. Don't deny it.

Update: OK, this is funny. From Twitter (natch):

One of the advantages to drafting badly and making terrible free agent choices is you have plenty of cap space, pretty much all the time.

By "one of the advantages", I mean "the only advantage".

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

One of the advantages to drafting badly and making terrible free agent choices is you have plenty of cap space, pretty much all the time.

By "one of the advantages", I mean "the only advantage".

It worked for Jacksonville. You do that for about 8 years and then you suddenly start drafting awesomely and signing free agents that actually earn their money, and you become a Super Bowl contender.

It works better if you work a decent QB in the mix there along the way though.

I don’t know what you guys are complaining about. Anything is an improvement over the endless discussion of the football slightly moving during a player falling to the ground. I can’t imagine how this could be worse. The fact that Ertz caught the football took 3 steps and leapt into the end zone and then broke the goal line never once remotely losing the football in any shape but we still had to stop for 10 minutes for the refs to look at it 7 different ways while Collingsworth (possibly the worst human being ever) assured us what looked like an obvious catch was in fact actually not even close to being a catch should be reason enough to kill the stupid rule dead.

I think there can be an easy litmus test on whether the play should be controversial and discussed exhaustingly:
Swap the player with your most hated player on your most hated team and ramp up the stakes for winning/losing.
So in my case I would swap Ertz for Dez Bryant and while I have no love for the Eagles, I hate the Cowboys more. And even under those teeth clenching circumstances, that is a catch, period. No controversy.

It is blatantly obvious any ball movement was due to trying to run with the ball stretched out in front which should be simple to mimic and end the discussion. Stick a ball into the hands of any naysayers and film them running while holding it out in front of them.

side note: I like Collinsworth

Jesus. Is there any kicker news? Please, god, make the catch rule conversation stop!

P.S. I like Collinsworth, too. I also don't mind the Eagles.

Allen Hurns is signing with Dallas. Ex-Jag news is almost as good as kicker news!

Bye Dez

Tramon? Welcome home!

Yeah, nothing suspicious about Michael Bennett getting indicted in Houston for an alleged crime committed at the end of the Super Bowl and the investigation into said crime starting about three weeks after he spoke out about how he was treated by the Las Vegas police. Nope.

Rat Boy wrote:

Yeah, nothing suspicious about Michael Bennett getting indicted in Houston for an alleged crime committed at the end of the Super Bowl and the investigation into said crime starting about three weeks after he spoke out about how he was treated by the Las Vegas police. Nope.

Doesn’t help that the press conference to announce the charges was similarly bizarre and reeked of bias

https://deadspin.com/grandstanding-h...