Tuesday, August 31, 2010

8 comments MMQB Review: Peyton Manning Doesn't Appreciate Your Rule Changes Edition

Last week Peter King told us that Hines Ward will probably make the Hall of Fame based on what he has done in comparison with other Steelers receivers who are in the Hall of Fame. There was a differing of opinions in the comments on whether Ward is a Hall of Fame candidate based on the fact he was so durable and a good receiver or if durability is a criteria for the Hall of Fame. Either way, Peter knew one thing, and that one thing was that Brett Favre had decided he was coming back to play in the NFL. Fortunately, Peter has some more information on Favre's injuries this week (because we wanted in-depth analysis on all of Favre's injuries) and he wonders how the NFL can make rule changes that would intentionally try to hurt Peyton Manning.

But the most intriguing event of the third round of games has to do with officiating, and the effect of moving the umpire from the defensive to the offensive side of the ball so he won't be such a defenseless target in the middle of pass patterns.

When I was watching the Colts-Packers game last week I thought it was pretty stupid how this rule had the umpire set up. I do have to say any rule change that gets Bill Polian pissed off and publicly whining about something at least has some entertainment value.

I don't want to be too dramatic about it, but it's a virtual certainty that the rule will have far more impact on the Colts than on any other team in football.

First, the NFL doesn't change the way pass interference is called and the Colts lose the AFC Championship game to the Patriots, then the NFL doesn't completely change the way they do overtime in the regular season and the playoffs so the Colts lose to the Chargers WITHOUT EVERY TOUCHING THE BALL, then the NFL doesn't outlaw onside kicks and the Colts lose the Super Bowl, and now the NFL is making rule changes that will hurt the Colts hurry-up offense. The Colts think either the NFL doesn't care to cater to the them very much or they just don't like their team overall.

The Colts aren't asking for special treatment, they just don't want the NFL to make any NFL-wide rule changes that will negatively affect them in the future, and change any rules that negatively affected them in the past.

They won't be able to run their no-huddle offense with the same speed. And the triggerman knows it.

Speaking of the Colts not being able to run their offense with the same speed, it wasn't quite fair that Tracy Porter got to jump Reggie Wayne's route in the Super Bowl. Shouldn't cornerbacks have to count to two before they try to intercept a pass? It only seems fair to the Colts.

Maybe the Colts should put a call in to Marvin Harrison to go to Roger Goodell's office in New York and threaten him with a gun if he doesn't make sure the umpire's position stays the same. Marvin Harrison will fuck Roger Goodell up if necessary.

"If we had this rule last year,'' Manning said Saturday night, "there's no way we catch up in that New England game. We were down, what, 21 points in the fourth quarter? We wouldn't have had enough time to run enough plays to catch up. But forget about that game. Let's chart all the comeback wins where a team runs the hurry-up in the fourth quarter. How many of those games would have ended up the same way -- or would the quarterbacks have had enough time to run enough plays to come back and win?''

(the sound of gnashing of teeth and weeping over the Colts inability to come back after they have gotten behind 21 points to the Patriots at home)

How are the Colts expected to come back and win a game after they have spotted the other team 21 points if the NFL is going to change the rules around to make it harder for them to come back?

I am really in favor of keeping the umpire where he is at behind the defensive line, mostly because I don't know where else he could go and still spot the ball quickly. I think it is inefficient to move him because it will slow teams in a hurry-up offense down. I can't help but poke fun at the Colts though. It could hurt them the most, but it is a rule that will be universal throughout the NFL, and it was a rule designed for safety reasons, not to hurt the Colts.

To recap the new rule: The umpire traditionally was the official who most often spotted the ball, then scurried back about five yards behind the defensive line of scrimmage to watch the play unfold. But last year, keeping with the recent tradition of physical plays against the ump because he was the center of a bunch of offensive crossing routes, there were approximately 100 collisions between players and umps.

One resulted in an umpire needing shoulder surgery, and another ump need knee surgery after being knocked down.

"Ump need knee surgery!" Woman, pass ump food so he can make eat of it and make ump happy. Maybe make forget he need knee surgery.

The Competition Committee, backed by Commissioner Roger Goodell, deemed it a safety issue, so the ump was assigned to a spot about 15 yards behind the offensive line of scrimmage, on the opposite side of where the referee is stationed. The lone exception to the rule happens in the last two minutes of each half, when the league, in a nod to the possibility of teams running a hurry-up offense, will station the umps in their traditional spot, so as not to interfere with the offensive rhythm in a two-minute drill.

You'll never guess who is a Competition Committee member...wait for it...wait some more...Bill Polian is. I really, really hope he didn't vote in favor of this rule and now is complaining about it. I wonder if Polian voted for it?

(spoiler alert)

It turns out he did vote for it.

What's the deal with the NFL creating new rules that only take place in the playoffs or at certain times of an NFL game? Either put the umpire behind the quarterback or put him behind the defensive line. Choose one and make it happen for the entire game. I make fun of the Colts not liking the rule change, but there has to be a more efficient place to put the umpire.

On Sunday I asked the new NFL vice president of officiating, Carl Johnson, about Manning's claim that teams can't run hurry-up offensive series the same way they have in recent years. Which is to say, in a hurry.

"The way the new mechanic of the umpire positioning is, I don't have a resolution to that,'' said Johnson. "It's going to take a couple extra seconds to spot the ball. There's no way around that. But this is a work in progress. We're aggressively seeking ways to improve the mechanics.''

Look at Peter King doing some reporting. Take that Starwood Preferred Member! You've pissed off Peter and now he is doing some actual reporting.

Glad the VP of officiating basically tells NFL teams "you're fucked" when it comes to a hurry-up offense. Nice.

Here's a good way to fix it. Go back to the way it was and tell the officials try not to get hurt when they are standing behind the defensive line and let them know unfortunately it is a part of the job. It sounds insensitive and it is, but it is also the best solution, other than have another official spot the ball. If there were a better solution that would not affect play in the game and could keep the umpire safe, I would advocate for that solution.

Three: Why does an ump have to be so far behind the line of scrimmage on the offensive side? Johnson said he doesn't; one of the tweaks already made to the system says that as soon the umpire is behind the back or quarterback -- whoever is furthest back from the line -- the quarterback can snap the ball without penalty.

So how does the quarterback know the umpire is back far enough? He gets a signal from another official presumably, which means the process is still going to be slowed up in some ways.

Thursday night in Green Bay, the Colts twice got called for "false start -- snap infringement'' for snapping the ball before umpire Garth DeFelice had returned to his position. Once it was because the Colts' Anthony Gonzalez made a questionable reception, and Manning was hustling to the line to try to force the hand of Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy to either use one of his replay challenges or, if he didn't, to get the next play off quickly so the catch would stand. "So not only do we get penalized,'' said Manning, "but now McCarthy has plenty of time to decide whether to challenge the play or not.''

What? So first the officials call a penalty on the Colts and then they still let Mike McCarthy challenge the call on the field? When will this prejudice against the Colts' way end?

"I am dead-set against the penalty,'' said Polian. "It is insane. If I knew it would be this way, I'd have voted against it, and not only that, I'd have crusaded against it.''

So Bill Polian voted for the rule change that he now absolutely hates? How would he have crusaded against it? Would he have held a march with picket signs protesting the rule? I want to know more about the crusade Polian was planning.

For now, I can see some mayhem on the horizon. Indianapolis opens the season at Houston, and the Texans have the ability to play pinball football, scoring early and often. If the Colts find themselves down double-digits in the fourth quarter, I can see Manning wanting to go to a quick-snap set (he might want to in the middle of the second quarter; who knows?) and being frustrated by the pace of the officials.

I admit it is a stupid rule, but how about the Colts try not to get down by double-digits when it comes time to play the 4th quarter? It would fix this problem of having to come back. Would that be too easy to try and do?

I examined Manning's point about the big comeback last November to see about the quick no-huddle he ran. Let say, for the sake of argument, that the re-positioning of the umpire would have taken an additional five seconds per play, with the obvious proviso that on incomplete passes or on plays when the clock was stopped you wouldn't add the additional four seconds. Would the Colts have actually had enough time to rebound from a 31-14 deficit with 14 minutes to play to win?

They had 16 plays. Eight of them were live-ball plays, with the clock running at the end. Considering that Manning bled the clock in the last drive of the game, inside the two-minute warning, it's a stretch to think that 40 seconds would have doomed the Colts that night

So Peyton Manning really had no point. I still don't like the rule but it may end up being an annoyance more than anything else if the officials could find a way to get another official to set the ball.

... though it's possible the Patriots, rested and able to react better to his fast-paced offense, would have made some defensive plays to stop the Colts on one of the three scoring drives.

They would have had five seconds under Peter's scenario to rest on 8 plays. I don't know if that is enough time to be better rested and ready to react better. Maybe the Patriots defense would have had some more time to get set up, but it would have only been a few seconds between each play.

Brett Favre: He's already taking injections in his wounded ankle.

Bengoodfella: He doesn't care.

Hey everyone! Haven't you heard that Brett Favre is injured? He is playing football injured! He'll tell you all about it if you want! Can you believe he is playing football injured? I bet no one else has ever done this!

He said Dr. Andrews made two incisions on the top of his left ankle, where the ankle flexes above the foot, and sucked out the loose bodies. He said Dr. Andrews wasn't surprised a significant spur returned when Favre went for a re-exam a month ago -- but he was surprised it happened so fast. The Vikings will attempt to manage the pain the spur brings on, but Favre said he didn't think he'd take any painkillers stronger than Motrin.

No Vicodin for the pain? He doesn't want to just pop a few? Not even one?

Yeah, I am an asshole.

"It's catching up with me, all this stuff,'' said Favre, who turns 41 in October.

Then fucking retire and quit talking about it. I get so tired of Favre deciding to come back and play and then telling us all how injured he is. If he is injured then just retire or quit talking about being injured.

"My ankle just seems to get easier to sprain. I know everyone thinks the New Orleans game [the NFC Championship Game] killed me, but it was bad before then. Now we'll see if I can make it. My mind's telling me one thing, but my body's telling me something else.''

Translation: Sidney Rice is out for a while and Percy Harvin has a headache, so I had better think of an excuse for why my performance this year could be sub-par. If I play well everyone in the media will say what a warrior I am and if I play poorly...well I am hurt so that is why I played poorly.

I get so tired of hearing about Brett Favre's mind and body telling him different things. Plenty of athletes who still want to play sports in their mind have had to retire due to injuries, but Brett Favre has to be a drama queen and make his decision the most difficult decision in the history of mankind. Favre has announced he is playing this year and he is still waffling on whether to actually play. The decision is made. Shut up and play football.

I've said this all along: This ankle thing's a little different that the weariness he felt a year ago. There could come a time where his mobility is so compromised that Favre won't be able to get out of the way of the rush consistently.

I've said this all along: If Favre is injured and can't play well enough to help the team then retire. Tom Brady plays a season with broken ribs coming off major knee surgery and doesn't utter a word about it, while Brett Favre gets a paper cut and starts doubting his future ability to throw the football, calls an interview to publicly discuss this and then sends out pictures of how deep that paper cut actually was.

Katrina at Age 5: Maybe Mickey Loomis should be executive of the decade.

I'm exaggerating a bit there. The Saints certainly weren't the dominant force of Indianapolis or New England in the past 10 years. Not even close. But if the Pittsburgh Pirates beat the Yankees in the World Series next year, wouldn't you give them three times the credit of any other team for winning such a series?

Yes I would, but the Saints aren't the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NFL. It's not even close either. The Saints had a record of 70-74 for 2000-2008 and that's obviously not including their 13-3 record for 2009. They weren't a bad team over the decade. It's insulting to Pirates fans and to Saints fans to compare them to the Pirates at all.

The Saints went 8-8 in 2008, it's not like they even had a losing record the year before they won the Super Bowl.

One NFL medical person -- don't want to be too specific -- told me Sunday that the injury that is apparently plaguing fired Cincinnati wideout Antonio Bryant could be Chondral Defect of the knee. "If you're not looking for it, you won't find it,'' this official said. "It's a long-term knee problem that won't go away.'' The ailment refers to a complicated cartilage injury to the knee. Whether that's the exact injury plaguing Bryant or not, it's incredible that a team investigating a free-agent wide receiver who missed most of 2009 with a knee problem would have passed him on the physical this year,

I'm not defending this signing, because it is clear the Bengals don't seem to know what they are doing when it comes to signing wide receivers, but the medical person said if a team isn't looking for the knee injury they won't find it. So when doing the physical, the Bengals probably weren't specifically looking for it...so they didn't find it.

I just can't figure out why they blew it two years in a row on receivers no other teams were very interested in.

Two years in a row on three receivers no other team was interested in. I lump Terrell Owens in there until he can behave himself for an entire year.

Quote of the Week III

"Stylez is my Allen Iverson ... We're going to tolerate him 'til we can replace him.''

-- Tampa Bay coach Raheem Morris, on his tough-to-coach defensive end with the manufactured name, Stylez G. White.

Based on the fact White is 31 years old and had 6.5 sacks last year as a starter, I would say Raheem Morris only needs to tolerate him until free agency or the draft next year.

Stat of the Week

Anyone else find this weird? Bill Belichick, with 163 victories in 15 seasons, is 14th on the all-time NFL coaching wins list.

Coaches 11 through 13 are all Hall of Famers (Joe Gibbs 171, Paul Brown 170, Bud Grant 168).

Coaches 6 through 10 are all not Hall of Famers (Marty Schottenheimer 205, Dan Reeves 201, Chuck Knox 193, Bill Parcells 183 and Mike Holmgren 174).

This is an example (maybe not a great one) of the Hines Ward argument last year for coaches. While the coaches in spots 6 through 10 are all great coaches, they all (with the exception of Holmgren) coached for a while and were able to accumulate many wins, so they may have been great coaches, but not Hall of Fame coaches. I would say this is the case for Knox and Reeves.

Of course the real reason these coaches in spots 6 through 10 aren't in the Hall of Fame is that three of these guys (Parcells, Schottenheimer, and Holmgren) aren't actually eligible yet. This makes Peter's point much less interesting.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Travel Note of the Week


On a Delta flight from Boston to Minneapolis on Saturday morning, I was sitting on the aisle in coach, my legs snug against the seatback, with an empty seat next to me as the plane filled up. A young man, maybe 25, walked down the aisle, looked at his ticket, looked at the empty seat next to me and, wordlessly, began lifting his leg over my two thighs. The man, whether he could speak English or not, had no intention of motioning for me to stand up so he could get to his seat as a normal human being would.

This is a little bizarre, but maybe the guy assumed because Peter had his legs snug against the other set and the plane was filling up he didn't want to get up? It's not like Peter is the most flexible looking person, so the guy thought rather than be rude and expect Peter to stand up, he would walk over him.

"Whoa, whoa,'' I said, holding my hand up. "I'll get up.''

I got up, allowed the man into the seat, and sat back down. He didn't say a word to me, nor I to him, for the 2-hour, 17-minute flight.

No big deal, I guess. It's just that ... well, who would naturally think to get in a plane seat by climbing over someone, and clearly touching that person awkwardly while grabbing onto a setback for support, and jarring the person in that seat?

Maybe the same kind of person who would sit down on a plane and not immediately get up when it is clear a person is trying to get into the seat beside him? Peter was just sitting there so the guy figured he probably would have to climb over him to get into his seat.

From the sports transactions in Wednesday's Boston Globe:

FOOTBALL
NFL: Fined Cincinnati WR Chad Ochocinco $25,000 for Tweeting during a prohibited time.

Of course, Ochocinco didn't respond with a quote, but with a Tweet, saying, in part, "Dad, again I apologize 2 you for my Tweet.'' Bengals coach Marvin Lewis, who is never shy about the Chad nonsense, said with a sigh to the Cincinnati media: "It's just Chad doing something stupid again.''

It's good to see Marvin Lewis has complete control of his team. This is the guy the Bengals have in charge of controlling both Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens. Good luck with that.

1. I think I'd be very surprised if commissioner Goodell didn't reduce BenRoethlisberger's suspension from six to four games when they meet in New York Friday.

It looks like Peter should be prepared to be very surprised. (It turns out I was taken by the Mike Wise hoax where he posted a fake report to see how many people would run with it and report it without checking their sources. Sadly, I do feel stupid for not doing a search to get a second report on this, but I also don't really feel bad that I believed what he wrote.)

3. I think the Leinart yanking shows Ken Whisenhunt didn't trust Leinart in 2007, and he doesn't trust him now. How that trust can be rebuilt is the tough question.

The scariest part about this if I was a Cardinals fan is that Ken Whisenhunt trusts Derek Anderson. Maybe Anderson will remember how to play quarterback and succeed in the Cardinals offense, but he hasn't shown he could do this in the preseason yet.

4. I think it's hard to figure out which rookie Jim Schwartz is more excited about -- Jahvid Best or Ndamukong Suh. Best gives the Lions a dimension they just haven't had since (dare I say it?) Barry Sanders. Suh, Schwartz said, "makes some plays in the interior line that Albert Haynesworth would make in his fifth year. He's been amazing.''

Well, the reason Haynesworth made those plays in his fifth year and no sooner is because he was going to be a free-agent soon and figured he had to earn a new contract.

7. I think those C.J. Spiller highlights make me hope, for the Bills' sake, that he can play more than the part-time role his history says he should play. At Clemson, Spiller rarely lugged it 20 times a game, and with the punishment he'll take in the NFL, it's unrealistic to expect he'll approach that workload.

Ladies and gentlemen, the number 9 pick in the 2010 draft...CJ Spiller!

I like how the Bills took a non-franchise running back at #9 in the first round. Yeah, he's a potentially explosive player, but Spiller is a luxury for a team that may not have other glaring needs...or as I call it, "not the Bills."

8. I think that was not a good night for Tim Tebow, even though it ended with a nice touchdown throw to Eric Decker. Easier said than done, but he needs to get comfortable out there. He looked tight and not so athletic against Pittsburgh on Sunday night.

But he is athletic! Don't you remember him athletically running over players in college because he was bigger than them? That's athleticism in being able to run over other players the same size as you.

d. Coffeenerdness: I've got to hand it to Caribou Coffee in the Minneapolis airport on Sunday morning at 5:45. You guys make one heck an oatmeal at that hour. Good little latte too. Got me started pretty well on a jammed-up day.

Perhaps Peter should try this site for his compliments to Caribou Coffee.

Is there anyone that reads this and says, "Holy shit, I find it so interesting Peter King had good oatmeal and latte at Caribou Coffee early in the morning. I want to know more about what kind of good food and drink he has had lately."

I didn't think so. I doubt Peter's life is so interesting anyone truly cares what he had to drink or eat.

e. The question is no longer whether John Lackey's worth $16 million a year. It's whether he's worth $1.6.

Well, the good news is that he is signed until he is 36 years old. The Red Sox always wanted to be just like the Yankees, well now they are. Now they get to miss big on expensive free agents just like the Yankees!

(Though I bet Lackey could bounce back next year, so I wouldn't completely write him off yet.)

f. Manny. White Sox. Afterthought.

Naturally. Where do the White Sox even play?

h. Very good to be with you, Tim Sweeney and company, to support Youth Care, the Boston charity helping kids with Asperger's Syndrome. Good cause. Fun night. Nice striped bass. Thank you.

Thanks for the great service Waffle House. I really enjoyed the food and cold coffee you served me. Great times. Dirty table. Was afraid to take a shit in the bathroom. Appreciate all you do.

j. Good luck at Oberlin, Emma Goldstein. You too at Marquette, Tess Quinlan. And Tess, how long did it take you to know 64 other frosh? Fifteen minutes?

Email. Learn it. Use it. Thank you.

k. I wish I could give you more this morning, folks. The SI mag preview issue, out Tuesday, has kayoed me. Will try to be back longer next week.

"Sorry for half-assing this part of my job, but another part of my job has taken up my attention and I am not capable of doing both, but I still want you to think of me as valuable to the company."

I try to use this excuse at work everyday and don't get very receptive feedback from management.

l. Did Pete Thamel write the entire New York Times sports section Sunday or what? Bylines from three time zones! That has to be a record, Pete. Good job.

Holy shit, Pete. Great job. Peter King didn't even know there WERE three time zones in the United States.

8 comments:

Thilo said...

What's the deal with the NFL creating new rules that only take place in the playoffs or at certain times of an NFL game? ... Choose one and make it happen for the entire game.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. There are several rules that exist and have existed for many years that are specifically instituted for certain times of games. Usually it is to prevent teams from abusing rules to gain an unfair advantage.

- If the player with the ball goes out of bounds, the clock is stopped only until the ball is signaled ready for play. However, in the final two minutes of the first half and the final five minutes of the second half, this rule is changed such that the clock is stopped until the snap. This rule is designed to allow the two-minute drill to behave as desired while preventing the game from taking too much time overall.

- For most of the game, if a player fumbles, anybody can recover and advance the ball. However, in the last 2 minutes of each half, only the fumbling player can advance the ball. This prevents players who are playing from behind from using a forward fumble as a last resort when they are about to be tackled in-bounds/on 4th down.

- I don't need to recap the challenge rules, but they are another example of rule changes for the last 2 minutes of a half

- A pre-snap penalty in the last minute of a half will result in a 10 second run-off if the clock was running prior to the penalty. This prevents teams from using a penalty to kill the clock faster.

- A timeout must be used for an injured player inside of the last 2 minutes of each half, whereas the clock stops outside of 2 minutes. Again, this is to prevent injuries or faking injuries from helping a trailing team.

The umpire rule change makes sense to me. Most offenses don't run at the high-paced two-minute drill pace except inside of (or near) the last two minutes. Even Manning, who is complaining about it, typically uses most of the play clock with all of his pre-snap antics. He rarely snaps the ball quickly even in the no-huddle. However, it is clear that this would slow the two-minute drill, so putting the ump in a more efficient spot to prevent problems when all teams are in a clock-management situation makes sense. There is significant precedent (and I think reasonable argument) for changing the rules in certain times of the game.

Also, the 5-game suspension report was shown to be a hoax. It was a social experiment by a columnist who wanted to prove that any news on twitter would get reported before any verification was done. The article you linked even has a disclaimer about it now.

FormerPhD said...

BGF,

I'm a little loopy from the Vicodin (suck on that Brett!) my dentist gave me (thanks wisdom teeth), but thanks for putting this much effort into the blog. Not only the articles, but the replies in the comments as well. In a day that I wanted to be over at 10, this made the day a lot more tolerable.

That said, I have to agree with RuleBook on the rule change. Just like the challenge system, there are just times when it the "best" solution is a compromise. The "old" system was getting umpires hurt; the "new" system hurt the two minute drill. So it makes sense to solve the former by getting the umpire out of the way for 56 minutes and giving the two most important minutes for the no huddle the more efficient way.

That said, the Colts are acting like massive tools in this situation. Like you said, it's a universal rule change. The Saints had an illegal snap penalty called as well during the pre-season. There are some legitimate concerns with the new rule: more holding calls, more false start penalties, less encroachment and defensive offside penalties. It sucks, but great teams find ways to overcome these kinds of things.

As it is in most cases, it doesn't bother me that the Colts are against the rule and I, in fact, agree with most of their points. It's just a matter of how you handle it. Using your example, Brady doesn't complain about his injuries while Favre constantly complains about his. Likewise, Brees is on the record as disliking the new rule, but he hasn't spent the entire pre-season whining about it.

Had Peyton just said (once): "Hey here's why I don't like the new rule..." everything would be fine. He didn't do that and tried to be sarcastic about it by saying the umpires needed to be more athletic.

Bengoodfella said...

Rulebook, I don't think it makes very much sense to have the official in one place for one part of the game and then move him in the other part of the game. I shouldn't have made that statement as you have shown there are other rules that change late in a game.

I don't think this official movement would fall under the category of giving either side an unfair advantage, so it is different. Your explanations of those that deal with an unfair advantage do make sense, so I shouldn't have made that statement because there are other reasonable rules that change late in the game. I was referring mostly to this decision and overtime rules.

My only question would be if Indy goes no-huddle would the umpire immediately make it more efficient and move to the other side of the line so he doesn't slow up play or would the NFL only keep this rule in situations under two minutes. It's true Manning does antics before the snap that burns clock, but in situations where a team goes no-huddle or in a hurry-up offense would the umpire change his position.

I saw earlier today it was a hoax and had forgotten I had used that link. I put a statement in the post, but I don't know what I could have done differently since I thought Mike Wise was accurate. I thought it was a bit early to get a report on the length of the suspension.

Rich, thanks for that. I enjoy writing here when I can. I do try to respond to comments even if they rightly call me an idiot.

I can see how you would disagree with me, and you guys are making some good points to where I may change my mind. I still believe if an offense goes hurry-up early in the game then the officiating and placement of the ball should be adjusted. For me, I can understand why it would only change in the last two minutes, but I think it takes some strategic advantage away from the offense by taking away a few seconds from where the ump has to place the ball and run back to his position.

It is a universal change, so I don't get why the Colts are really, really upset by it. They are against the rule, and that's fine, but teams won't be able to go hurry-up on them which they should like.

Teams will adjust to the rule, and like I said, this may be a minor annoyance, but I bet Bill Polian is not happy at all about it. He wants to crusade against it apparently.

I think some umpires may be more athletic than Peyton so he should be careful with what he says.

FormerPhD said...

Now onto my typical style of commenting.

How many of those games would have ended up the same way -- or would the quarterbacks have had enough time to run enough plays to come back and win?''

"enough time to run enough plays?" Hey Peyton, "enough" time is whatever is left on the clock and "enough" plays is however many plays you can get off in that time.

"So not only do we get penalized,'' said Manning, "but now McCarthy has plenty of time to decide whether to challenge the play or not.''

The penalty isn't enforced unless the call is overturned. So either the play is either overturned and the "correct" call is made and the penalty isn't enforced or the Packers lose a challenge and a timeout and you get the 5 yard penalty. The Saints had a very similar situation with a ruled completion that was overturned. Brees didn't bitch about it.

I'd have voted against it, and not only that, I'd have crusaded against it.''

Polian just basically called himself a moron. Practically anyone who watches any amount of football knew what the impact would be. So, in essence, Polian just admitted he didn't know enough about football to understand the obvious ramifications of the rule.

Would the Colts have actually had enough time to rebound from a 31-14 deficit with 14 minutes to play to win?

Just want to reiterate this point: Yes. They would have just had to call different plays.

How that trust can be rebuilt is the tough question.

No, it's actually a really simple question. Leinart's teammates don't trust him, so why would coach put in a QB that the team doesn't like playing with? Like I said a few posts ago, Leinart just seems lazy. The easiest thing for Leinart to do is to start busting his ass, put in extra hours, work with Anderson and cheer him on.

The other thing he could do? Ask coach for a list of offensive players on the bubble, 2-3 WRs, 2 RBs, a TE and a 5 OL guys. Find some defensive guys (maybe not a complete defense, but enough to provide some challenge) and go run plays with them. Make the team better at it's weakest parts and the team will respond.

. I think those C.J. Spiller highlights make me hope, for the Bills' sake, that he can play more than the part-time role his history says he should play.

So let me get this straight Peter. You know the guy doesn't have a history of carrying the load, but you saw a few highlights and now think he might be able to? "Hey I know Jonny Venters is a relief pitcher and not a workhorse, but I saw some highlights from the Nationals series and I think he might be able to start."

He looked tight and not so athletic against Pittsburgh on Sunday night.

It was the first quality defense Tebow has faced. Did he look great? No, but he showed enough that, given time, he could actually be a solid NFL QB.

The question is no longer whether John Lackey's worth $16 million a year. It's whether he's worth $1.6.

He's actually making 18.7M this year (15.25M the next four). Lackey's BABIP is also .330 this year, which means he's been pretty damn unlucky. His WAR is 2.8; last year it was 3.9. That's not really a significant drop considering the rise in BABIP and his age.

Bylines from three time zones!

This is what I'm sure happened: He had a flight that had a layover. He posts a story from home, takes a flight files a story while waiting for the second flight, then files a third from wherever he was traveling to. Not really all that spectacular.

FormerPhD said...

In situations where a team goes no-huddle or in a hurry-up offense would the umpire change his position.

I can see your point on this as well and, like everything in life, there really isn't one "this fixes everything solution." If there was, it'd already be in effect.

That said, the problem with the this is that you'd be asking the umpire to keep track of a lot. When he spots the ball he has to look to see if the offense is going into a huddle, he then has to go to the correct position on the field while watching for the possible infractions. That's a lot to keep up with.

Along those same lines, teams might only go no huddle for one play on a drive, so the umpire now has one play that ruins his flow in the game. Eventually, your idea would probably work, but until the umpires get used to the pattern it'd be a nightmare. Imagine if an umpire was supposed to go to the defensive side for a no huddle, but went to the offensive side and the offense ended up with an illegal snap penalty. It'd be ugly.

ivn said...

Suh, Schwartz said, "makes some plays in the interior line that Albert Haynesworth would make in his fifth year. He's been amazing.''

you didn't go for the Gurode head stomp/Delhomme corkscrew connection? I'm disappointed in you, Ben.

Indianapolis opens the season at Houston, and the Texans have the ability to play pinball football, scoring early and often. If the Colts find themselves down double-digits in the fourth quarter...

they'll still easily win because the Texans always choke against the Colts. way to pick a terrible example, Peter.

I've said this all along: This ankle thing's a little different that the weariness he felt a year ago. There could come a time where his mobility is so compromised that Favre won't be able to get out of the way of the rush consistently.

so Brett and Peter make the preemptive strike for when Favre throws a season-ending interception. that's the kind of veteran savvy you get from Brett Favre. take notes, Mark Sanchez!

The Saints went 8-8 in 2008, it's not like they even had a losing record the year before they won the Super Bowl.

yeah but Peter ranked them what like 20th before last season? because of Jeremy Shockey's health issues of course.

A young man, maybe 25, walked down the aisle, looked at his ticket, looked at the empty seat next to me and, wordlessly, began lifting his leg over my two thighs.

"now, a question of etiquette: do I give you the ass or the crotch?"

j. Good luck at Oberlin, Emma Goldstein. You too at Marquette, Tess Quinlan. And Tess, how long did it take you to know 64 other frosh? Fifteen minutes?

there's absolutely nothing wrong with posting the full names of two 18-year-old girls on a widely-read internet column. not at all.

Major-league box score line of the week, from Phils-Astros last Tuesday: RHoward 1b 7 0 0 0 0 5. No runs, hits, RBI, walks for Ryan Howard, but he did strike out five times in seven at-bats.

whoa whoa whoa, easy there PK. how can you use your column to take potshots at Ryan Howard? Matt Holliday's contract is just as big and he hasn't accomplished half the things Howard has.

I watched the Seattle Williams at the Vikes, and Matt Hasselbeck went to him early and often; you can tell the Seahawks have him built into the game plan, and he'll take the big receiver's role there.

well the Hawks are screwed this year.

Unknown said...

Doesn't it seem like the Seahawks should have been better then they are for about 5 years now? Other then the Super Bowl year, and the "WE're gonna take the ball and we're gonna score" year, they've been a disappointment for a decade it feels like to me. While I'm a casual observer, I don't think Holmgren did much in the way of "turning" the franchise around. Two good seasons in a baaaad division in the weak conference doesn't seem worthy of becoming Head Honcho of the Browns.

Bengoodfella said...

Rich, that's what I thought was funny about Peyton's comments. It is like he wants enough time to get down by double digits and then come back in the game. See Peyton, if you get down by double digits then you may not have time to come back, so try not get down by 14 points.

I have a feeling Polian had a few drinks in him and was having a good time when he voted for the rule change. He was probably thinking about going to the pool rather than how the rule would affect his team.

Why should the Colts have enough time to come back from 17 points down? It is not like they have a right to mount a comeback in the game. The defense gave up 31 points, so most of the time teams that have that happen lose the game.

I like what you said about Tebow..."given enough time" and that's all it will take. I am cheering for Tebow to be an NFL QB even though all the stories a/b him will annoy me. It's just not happening this year and the constant stream of "start Tebow" just annoys me.

I think Lackey will bounce back a little bit next year. You are right, he's had some bad luck and it has just been a tough year for the Red Sox overall.

Rich, I don't think my idea for the moving of the umpire during a no-huddle is especially good honestly. I just wish there was a way for when offenses went no-huddle the offense wouldn't have to worry about the spot of the ball. Having the ump move during a no-huddle offense is difficult to like you said. It would involve a few moving parts that would probably get confused. I wish there was a perfect solution and I don't think there is one.

Ivn, I missed that one. I have no excuse. That was an easy joke.

It is absolutely killing me that Brett Favre is already talking about him not being able to finish the year out. Here's a hypothetical...if he does start struggling and he isn't the best QB on the roster, do they replace him with Tarvaris Jackson? I say they don't, but there is a difference in waffling on retirement and leaving your teammates wondering if you will come back and then coming back and hurting the team. So if Favre is that injured, I can't help but wonder at what point Jackson may need to start.

I'm not saying it will happen, but all I have heard from Favre is that his ankle is hurting him. If his body tells him to stay retired, does that mean he is still the best chance the Vikings have to win games?

The answer in that question is you give the ass. Never the crotch, go for the ass.

I like the Holliday comment. That's another thing I missed. You think Joe Morgan wrote an email to Peter about how Ryan Howard striking out isn't a big deal because Matt Holliday doesn't deserve his contract?

Maybe Pete Carroll is the only person that can get a good performance out of Mike Williams. Maybe?

Martin, I don't know if the Seahawks should be better than they are anymore. I have never gotten that feeling from the Seahawks. I have always thought they were a good team from a conference that wasn't always the strongest. I always felt like the Seahawks were a good team, but a little soft. Of course that may not be true. I think comparatively Holmgren did a good job with them. I think his real test is what he does with the Browns. Holmgren hit on a QB in Hasselbeck fairly early in his tenure in Seattle and that always helps the cause. I would like to see him build a team when he doesn't have that franchise-type QB.