The NFL Thread

at this point i will not put anything past the 49er FO as far as dashing my hopes and dreams

Well, here's what TV Guide's Feb. 13-26, 2017 said in the "Cheers & Jeers" section:

All I can say is:

Davis to Vegas. Raiders' move supported by owners 31-1 (dissent was from the Dolphins).

Aaron Hernandez found dead in prison cell

As I've done for the past four years, I'll be live updating a post, this post in fact, with the first round of the 2017 NFL Draft here tonight. I'll set it up now, and then edit it as the night goes on.

With the 1st pick, the Cleveland Browns pick is in. They have selected Miles Garrett, Defensive End, Texas A&M.

With the 2nd pick, the San Francisco 49er's have traded with the Chicago Bears who pick Mitchell Trubisky, Quarterback, University of North Carolina.

With the 3rd pick, the Chicago Bears have traded with the San Francisco 49er's who select Solomon Thomas, Defensive End, Stanford.

With the 4th pick, the Jacksonville Jaguars select Leonard Fournette, Running Back, Louisiana State University.

With the 5th pick, the Tennessee Titans have chosen Corey Davis, Wide Receiver, Western Michigan University.

With the 6th pick, the New York Jets pick Jamal Adams, Safety, Louisiana State University.

With the 7th pick, the Los Angeles Chargers select Mike Williams, Wide Receiver. Clemson.

With the 8th pick, the Carolina Panthers select Christian McCaffrey, Running Back, Stanford.

With the 9th pick, the Cincinnati Bengals select John Ross, Wide Receiver, Washington.

With the 10th pick, the Buffalo Bills have traded with the Kansas City Chiefs, who pick Patrick Mahomes II, Quarterback, Texas Tech.

With the 11th pick, the New Orleans Saints select Marshon Lattimore, Cornerback, Ohio State University.

With the 12th pick, the Cleveland Browns 2nd pick of the 1st round was traded to the Houston Texans who chose Deshaun Watson, Quarterback, Clemson.

With the 13th pick, the Arizona Cardinals pick Haason Reddick, Linebacker, Temple.

With the 14th pick, the Philadelphia Eagles select Derek Barnett, Defensive End, Tennessee.

With the 15th pick, the Indianapolis Colts have chosen Malik Hooker, Safety, Ohio State.

With the 16th pick, at the round's halfway point, the Baltimore Ravens pick Marlon Humphrey, Defensive Back, Alabama.

With the 17th pick, the Washington Football Team selects Johnathan Allen, Defensive End, Alabama.

With the 18th pick, the Tennessee Titans 2nd 1st round pick is Adoree' Jackson, Cornerback, University of Southern California.

With the 19th pick, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have selected O.J. Howard, Tight End, Alabama.

With the 20th pick, the Denver Broncos pick Garrett Bolles, Offensive Tackle, Utah.

With the 21st pick, the Detroit Lions select Jarrad Davis, Linebacker, Florida.

With the 22nd pick, the Miami Dolphins select Charles Harris, Defensive End, Missouri.

With the 23rd pick, the New York Giants select Evan Engram, Tight End, Ole Miss.

With the 24th pick, the Oakland Raiders pick Gareon Conley, Cornerback, Ohio State.

With the 25th pick, the Houston Texans pick was traded to the Cleveland Browns, who select Jabrill Peppers, Defensive Back, Michigan.

With the 26th pick, the Seattle Seahawks have traded their pick to the Atlanta Falcons who pick Takkarist McKinley, Defensive End, UCLA.

With the 27th pick, the Kansas City Chiefs have traded with the Buffalo Bills, who pick Tre'Davious White, Cornerback, Louisana State University.

With the 28th pick, the Dallas Cowboys pick Taco Charlton, Defensive End, Michigan.

With the 29th pick, the Green Bay Packers have traded with the Cleveland Browns, who select David Njoku, Tight End, Miami.

With the 30th pick, the Pittsburgh Steelers select T.J. Watt, Linebacker, Wisconsin.

With the 31st pick, the Atlanta Falcons have traded their pick to the Seattle Seahawks who have traded their pick to the San Francisco 49er's, who pick Reuben Foster, Linebacker, Alabama.

With the 32nd and final pick of the night, the New Orleans Saints 2nd 1st round pick is Ryan Ramczyk, Offensive Tackle, Wisconsin.

And so concludes the 1st round.

edited 27th Apr '17 8:46:23 PM by EagleFan

I cannot believe the Bears threw away what, 3 picks to move up one spot for a player they should have been certain was going to be there-only thing that makes sense would be a bidding war where the Bears thought someone else was willing to trade up for Trubisky. Still, WTF.

I agree. This is by no means a QB deep draft, and the talent is not nearly as good as last year's, so I'm not sure what they were thinking taking someone who would have likely been available a few more picks down the draft order.

I think the GM was thinking it was time to retire, and this was the best way to get out of his contract :P

I guess the Bills ownership didn't like their draft. They just fired their GM. Seems a little odd, but that franchise is known to have a few issues.

I am so in honeymoon with John Lynch rn

I suppose it's the year of the surprising GM firing. I still can't figure out why the Panthers thought they needed to fire their GM. The guy saved them from cap hell, and made them into a pretty damn good team, and then they show him the door.

A neurosurgeon studied the brains of 111 deceased NFL players.

Looks like we have a new contender for worst call ever. Not only did Nazir Jones' touchdown after intercepting an Aaron Rogers pass get called back due to a phantom block in the back, but, on the same play, Jeremy Lane got ejected after getting mugged by Davonte Adams, and supposedly throwing a punch that didn't show up on video. It's one thing to make up penalties, or otherwise mangle calls. That happens. It's not right, but it happens. But, to eject a player for something he didn't actually do is completely unprecedented.

OK, I'll bite. My perspective is biased as a Packer fan, but I like to try and see things from a referee's perspective having had experience as an official (albeit in rugby union)

Dealing with the block in the back call first: it's marginal, but it is there. Got to get your hands in front of the pads: a hand on the back will be seen as a block in the back. Probably not helping the case is that I think the block was unnecessary. Aaron was the only player that might have stopped the TD but even that was doubtful. Ergo, if the referees think that a TD is going to be scored, any contact is seen from the perspective of opportunistic hits that ordinarily cannot be made. In other words the officials are in protect the QB mode. So it is going to bias their judgement when they see contact on the QB that was probably unnecessary.

The more controversial one. I think from a referees perspective the call was right. By that I mean the following.

In real time, the referee sees the arm go back and then make contact with the helmet. It was therefore inferred that it was a punch, rather than the forearm smother it actually was. It was also against a player on the floor in a defenseless position.

All that said: ejection was not the right call. If this was rugby we'd have said the whole thing was handbags and not done anything about it. Might have called the captain over and said "have a word with that player, get him to calm down". I think it identifies a weakness in the NFL rulebook: there is no sin bin. When the only player specific sanction available to the officials is ejection it limits their ability to manage the game. It would be interesting to have temporary suspensions, where say a player may not participate in the rest of the series or quarter, rather than the whole game.

Interesting perspective. I thought that the "block in the back" was pretty obviously a block in the side. I guess quarterbacks just have bigger backs than most people (particularly golden boy Aaron Rogers). As for the "punch", I understand your point about how a particularly nearsighted referee could misinterpret it as something actually worthy of an ejection, but that really just means that the league needs to make all ejections automatically reviewed. An ejection has a huge impact on the outcome of a game, potentially even more than that of a touchdown or turnover. We just saw what happens when that goes wrong. I don't think that any of it was defensible from any perspective.

Huh. ESPN pointed out that two players got ejected in the preseason without throwing a punch, but no one noticed because you know, it's the preseason. It may just be that the NFL is trying to reduce aggression and fighting by coming down hard on these sort of acts... but in classic league style, they didn't tell anyone they were doing so.

If so, it still doesn't explain the call. If anything, it just opens up the question why was Adams not ejected at the same time?

I disagree with the idea of making ejections reviewable. Only because from a referee's perspective sending someone off is an act where you are asserting your authority on the players. A situation has escalated to a point where the game has potentially gotten out of control. Referees need to be able to regain control and do so in such a way where their authority over the game is not in question.

In other words this is the wrong time for an official to be proved wrong or challenged... it could render the game impossible to be managed from that point onwards.

Again, this is from the perspective of rugby union, where there is only one referee (and two assistants) who has to take charge of 30 players on the pitch, in a collision sport. As a rule, video evidence may be used to identify a red card or yellow card offense, and the referee may decide on that evidence to eject or suspend a player. However, should the referee decide in real time that a red card or yellow card should be given to a player then they will not use video footage to attempt to challenge the decision.

Take a look at You Tube videos of referees such as Nigel Owens and how he uses his authority to manage the game.

Just to be clear, I'm not proposing making ejections reviewable in the sense that a player gets ejected, and the coach throws a red flag. I'm proposing something akin to the way the college targeting rule is enforced, where the refs effectively say, "We saw something that looked ejection-worthy, but we're going to take a look and make sure that we're interpreting the situation correctly before doing anything rash." I don't think that undermines the authority of the referee. Quite the contrary, it makes it abundantly clear to everyone else that the ejected player was out of line, and reduces the risk of the ejected player's teammates feeling victimized, and escalating. There is no undermining the ejection by having a coach all but say, "I don't think that is right," but you're still taking the time to get things right before making a decision that will have a huge impact on the game.

I think that as long as you retain room for an obvious ejection offense to not require video verification then that's okay. Basically a process like this:

1. An official spots something that may be result in an ejection. Flag gets thrown.
2. Officials huddle up and discuss. The official that threw the flag states their case. It's up to the referee how they respond. They would be told to err on the side of caution and request video review in most cases - but ultimately it is their decision, it is not automatic.
3. Referee either announces their decision, or it goes for review.
4. In the case of review, decision is made. Outcomes can include temporary suspensions, such as having to sit out the current series or quarter. Full ejection is reserved for the most serious offenses, or the case of someone who has been suspended and committed a subsequent suspension worthy offense.

The reason why I don't want to make it automatic is because there are cases where deliberation of any sort weakens the authority of the official. I'm mainly thinking of "x said, y said cases," where it is the player's word against the referee. In sport, there is no contest - referee is always right, period. Offenses of this type would be things such as contact with an official or abusing an official. If you want an example, I can only refer you to rugby once again. Wayne Barnes sent off Dylan Hartley in the Premiership final because Hartley called the referee "a f***ing cheat." That cannot be tolerated in sport, so in that circumstance an instant dismissal without review is the only option.

Figured I might as well post this-Ryan Shazier, star linebacker for the Steelers, left the field on a stretcher Monday night. Today, [1] he underwent spinal stabilization surgery, and is out for the year. He will likely never play again, and he may never walk again because of the injury, which he sustained by tackling a player and leading with the crown of the helmet.

I know the viciousness of the game is part of the appeal; but this happened near the start of the game the same night 2 other players were carted off the field after sustaining dirty hits, with the refs tossing a couple of flags and the coaching staffs doing nothing to discourage it.

I have watched this sport all my life, and it is getting harder every year.

Sports in general are pretty taxing on the body, but football is especially bad in this regard. Even if you don't suffer a Game-Breaking Injury like that, all of the little hits you take add up and lead to permanent damage later in life.

The problem with those type of injuries and the NFL is that is strikes at the heart of the game. It is a problem that is endemic to all collision sports - sports where physical contact with the opponent is fundamental to how the sport is played but the aim is not to cause actual harm. The next category up would be combat sports (Boxing, MMA) and down would be contact sports (Basketball, Soccer).

Given my UK upbringing, the parallels that I make are with Rugby Union, a sport which incidentally is going through it's own concussion crisis. It took me a long while to understand one of the fundamental differences between American Football and Rugby - why do NFL players suck at tackling?

The answer, is that they don't. It's just that the goal of the tackle is different in Rugby than in American Football. In Rugby, it doesn't matter if it takes the defender two or three yards to drag the attacker down. The aim is simply to get them on the ground. In American Football, every yard counts. Those extra yards you need to get them on the floor can be the difference between a fresh set of downs or a forced punt.

So what does that mean? It means in Rugby, you can target the legs. You are taught to hit the attacker around their thigh / hip area with your shoulder, making sure your head was well out of the way. If that got them down, great. If not, then you then wrap both arms around their legs and slide down their legs, tightening as you go. That way you lock their legs together and therefore they can't move. Ideally their own momentum should bring them down, but if not then a final twist would bring them to the floor - job done. They might make a few metres whilst you are tackling them, but that's not too big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

You can't do that in the NFL. The aim of the tackle is to stop the attacker's momentum stone dead. So you have to get them down straight away. That normally means flying in at a much higher position and at a faster speed, aiming for the chest area. It means you can't allow their momentum to do the job for you. It means more than likely putting your head and neck in a much more dangerous position (although a good tackle will be led by the shoulder).

We can get into the old debate on padding versus no padding, but it should be said that wearing helmets encourages risky behaviour. One thing that shocked me listening to NFL commentary was a commentator praising a player by causing a fumble "by using his head to aim for the football in the tackle" implying that this is what they are taught to do.

The NFL does need to address these type of injuries. But as explained above, doing so is not simple. When you have to change things such as the tackle, how yardage is awarded, how downs are awarded so as to encourage a safer tackling technique, it shows how much the rules and structures of the game lead to these specific injuries, and therefore the depth of which needs to change for an effective solution to be found.

the helmet argument always bugs me because before the helmet, players would just regularly get life threatening skull fractures from being smooshed

I don't know much about the early NFL - so it may be that the rules of the game then meant that the head was targeted more often and thus a helmet was seen as the solution.

It is undeniable that helmets do serve a safety purpose. When a player is defenceless and a full grown linebacker comes at them with a shoulder pad at head height, then yes, I'd much prefer that shoulder to hit a kevlar helmet then someone's skull.

But the injury we are talking about is not that sort of injury. I wish the best for Ryan Shazier, and I hate to see players hurt. But ultimately he was the one making the tackle. He put his head and neck and spine in danger, and this is the sad result. So the question I have is why did he do it? There are several components to my answer but undeniably one part is the mentality that when you wear a helmet you are taught that your head is a weapon. Until that attitude is removed from the game, we are going to see more injuries such as Shazier's and Nick Collins.

it's the concept of the offensive/defensive line along with the aforementioned post about every inch mattering. means dogpiles and bulldozing are common occurrences. there were a few noteworthy formations and techniques (the flying V, forward motion pre-snap) that were outlawed because they guaranteed to a) crush the opponent and get yards and b) literally crush the opponent and send them to the hospital. the other major introduction was the forward pass, which caused players to spread out more instead of smooshing together.

but ya, agreed that someone failed somewhere in teaching shazier tackling fundamentals and the helmet was part of that problem.

I always wondered why you don't get mauls in American Football, but thinking about it I can see why it shouldn't happen. The fact you can block and take players off the ball means that a maul is much more dangerous to set up.

I always forget that the pace of rugby is much lower than that of American Football... Maybe that is why my comparisons don't hold water.