Pretty much every game for the past 2 weeks has gone the opposite way that I've wanted, except for Detroit-TB.
I did not want either the Chiefs or the Niners, and coming into today I didn't know what I would do if it were that matchup. But after watching both games and listening to my gut, I hated the Niners far more than I hated the Chiefs today, so let's go Mahomes!
Yep. Let's go Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, Andy Reid, Chris Jones, Harrison Butker the Kicker ................. and freakin' effen Taylor Swift. Now go out and put on your Super Bowl game face ............. hit the pharmacy cosmetic sections and pick yourself up some red Taylor Swift lipschtick.
Here's one before Taylor:
Yep. The Chiefs have 3 things going for me.
1. I can’t stand douchebags that wear flat brim caps.
2. Nick Bosa is a racist.
3. The people who hate the Chiefs because Taylor Swift is shown on TV are of the dumbest kind.
Pretty much every game for the past 2 weeks has gone the opposite way that I've wanted, except for Detroit-TB.
I did not want either the Chiefs or the Niners, and coming into today I didn't know what I would do if it were that matchup. But after watching both games and listening to my gut, I hated the Niners far more than I hated the Chiefs today, so let's go Mahomes!
Yep. Let's go Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, Andy Reid, Chris Jones, Harrison Butker the Kicker ................. and freakin' effen Taylor Swift. Now go out and put on your Super Bowl game face ............. hit the pharmacy cosmetic sections and pick yourself up some red Taylor Swift lipschtick.
You be the judge. Is it a case of, "Well, he was a dumb kid, but he's matured now."? Or is it, "He's keeping his true feelings under wraps now that he's in the NFL."?
Unfortunately this article doesn't have the posts in question:
You can make the same argument that the offense lost possession and didn’t recover it.
I’m with @YoHoChecko. The impetus is on the offense to retain possession. If the defense makes a play causing them to lose possession and it goes through the endzone, they should receive the reward.
The offense gets to retain possession when fumbling out of bounds, right? Should that be changed?
The endzone and out of bounds are not the same. If the offense fumbles out of the endzone in their own endzone it is a safety. The endzones are, and rightfully should be, treated differently.
Hard to get fired up a week later, but OK. If the fumble takes place at the 2 inch line and bounces sideways OOB, the O gets it back, right? If the same fumble takes place and bounces through the EZ, the D gets it, right? Tell me how that has anything to do with protecting the ball, or the EZ, or whatever. The only difference is how the shape of the football affected its post-fumble travel.
The offense gets to retain possession when fumbling out of bounds, right? Should that be changed?
The endzone and out of bounds are not the same. If the offense fumbles out of the endzone in their own endzone it is a safety. The endzones are, and rightfully should be, treated differently.
Hard to get fired up a week later, but OK. If the fumble takes place at the 2 inch line and bounces sideways OOB, the O gets it back, right? If the same fumble takes place and bounces through the EZ, the D gets it, right? Tell me how that has anything to do with protecting the ball, or the EZ, or whatever. The only difference is how the shape of the football affected its post-fumble travel.
lets just have a possession arrow like in basketball. Any non recovered fumble goes to whatever way the arrow points? or flip a coin? because both make more sense than giving every possession lost back to the team that just lost possession...
Re: Divisional Round Games
Posted: 29 Jan 2024 14:41
by Yoop
last team to have possession retains possession, thats to me logical, and the way it sounds like it's going to be if they do in fact do away with giving the defense possession should the ball roll through the EZ. that would be consistent with every fumble
Re: Divisional Round Games
Posted: 29 Jan 2024 14:56
by Pckfn23
Should a fumble out of your own end zone not result in a change of possession?
last team to have possession retains possession, thats to me logical, and the way it sounds like it's going to be if they do in fact do away with giving the defense possession should the ball roll through the EZ. that would be consistent with every fumble
why is it logical, they lost it? seriously, rule number 1 of any offensive skill player, don't lose the ball. They lost it, and it's logical they just get it back? why? odds are 50% of the time, they'd have lost it lost it if it didn't go out of bounds. so why is it logical they get it back 100% of the time? especially considering they broke rule #1 of any offensive skill player? to me it's more logical to give the ball back to the team that did what it was supposed to do, dislodged the ball from the ball carrier, not reward the team that didn't do what they were supposed to do and lost the football. doing bad things is supposed to hurt.
last team to have possession retains possession, thats to me logical, and the way it sounds like it's going to be if they do in fact do away with giving the defense possession should the ball roll through the EZ. that would be consistent with every fumble
why is it logical, they lost it? seriously, rule number 1 of any offensive skill player, don't lose the ball. They lost it, and it's logical they just get it back? why? odds are 50% of the time, they'd have lost it lost it if it didn't go out of bounds. so why is it logical they get it back 100% of the time? especially considering they broke rule #1 of any offensive skill player? to me it's more logical to give the ball back to the team that did what it was supposed to do, dislodged the ball from the ball carrier, not reward the team that didn't do what they were supposed to do and lost the football. doing bad things is supposed to hurt.
because then we would just see a free for all of defenders ripping the ball out versus making tackles which we already see to much of now as it is, again whomever has possession prior to the ball going out of play any where, not just the side line but also out of the EZ should go back to the last team that had possession, why award the defense, the offense didn't score, isn't that enough, what about the other 99 yrds when it just goes out of bounds, ya want to just give that to the defense too
last team to have possession retains possession, thats to me logical, and the way it sounds like it's going to be if they do in fact do away with giving the defense possession should the ball roll through the EZ. that would be consistent with every fumble
why is it logical, they lost it? seriously, rule number 1 of any offensive skill player, don't lose the ball. They lost it, and it's logical they just get it back? why? odds are 50% of the time, they'd have lost it lost it if it didn't go out of bounds. so why is it logical they get it back 100% of the time? especially considering they broke rule #1 of any offensive skill player? to me it's more logical to give the ball back to the team that did what it was supposed to do, dislodged the ball from the ball carrier, not reward the team that didn't do what they were supposed to do and lost the football. doing bad things is supposed to hurt.
because then we would just see a free for all of defenders ripping the ball out versus making tackles which we already see to much of now as it is, again whomever has possession prior to the ball going out of play any where, not just the side line but also out of the EZ should go back to the last team that had possession, why award the defense, the offense didn't score, isn't that enough, what about the other 99 yrds when it just goes out of bounds, ya want to just give that to the defense too
and trying to, but not ripping the ball out would result in more explosive plays for the offense. Risk/reward. we see it all the time. Why go back to the last team that had possession? they lost it. Seriously, they had it, then they didn't. History/probability/statistics/logic all say they would be just as likely to get it back as to lose it. So why reward their risk 100% of the time? bad things should hurt.
and giving it to the defense would make more sense everywhere on the field than giving to the offense everywhere on the field. I mean they were given the ball and told not to lose it, they did. Sorry.
But for clarification. I'm 100% fine with the rules they way they are. They make sense and make ball security around the goal lines even more important, as they should because it is more important there. Everything is more important there.
Pretty much every game for the past 2 weeks has gone the opposite way that I've wanted, except for Detroit-TB.
I did not want either the Chiefs or the Niners, and coming into today I didn't know what I would do if it were that matchup. But after watching both games and listening to my gut, I hated the Niners far more than I hated the Chiefs today, so let's go Mahomes!
Yep. Let's go Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, Andy Reid, Chris Jones, Harrison Butker the Kicker ................. and freakin' effen Taylor Swift. Now go out and put on your Super Bowl game face ............. hit the pharmacy cosmetic sections and pick yourself up some red Taylor Swift lipschtick.
Here's one before Taylor:
Yep. The Chiefs have 3 things going for me.
1. I can’t stand douchebags that wear flat brim caps.
2. Nick Bosa is a racist.
3. The people who hate the Chiefs because Taylor Swift is shown on TV are of the dumbest kind.
Based on your posts in the Podium, I have doubts about point #2. You seem like someone who would define any innocuous little thing as racist.
As for the other points, I generally agree. I don't like Taylor Swift but the complaints about her being shown on TV are kind of annoying.
Mostly I am just rooting for KC because I hate that the 49ers constantly knock us out of the playoffs. I was the OG Kaepernick hater for this very reason.
You be the judge. Is it a case of, "Well, he was a dumb kid, but he's matured now."? Or is it, "He's keeping his true feelings under wraps now that he's in the NFL."?
Unfortunately this article doesn't have the posts in question:
I did want to judge for myself since I hadn't heard of these charges before now, and even went so far as to search for his old posts in question outside of the evidence-lacking article that was linked.
It seems what makes Bosa a "racist" in today's cultural climate is simply calling Kaepernick a "clown" even though his criticism was directed toward Kaepernick taking his knee on the anniversary of 9-11 and not the social movement Kaepernick was caught up in. Bosa's also been critical of celebrities, both black and white, but what apparently catapulted him into the realm of "racist" seems to be the audacity to direct posts at artists Beyonce, Jay-Z, and the movie Black Panther. None of the posts were outwardly racist, mind you, just critical of elements and agendas within the celebrity/movie production.
Oh, and he supports Donald Trump. Automatic "racist" qualifier, right there.
So, yeah, until I see some actual evidence of overt "racist" behavior, I'll continue to give him the benefit of doubt.
You be the judge. Is it a case of, "Well, he was a dumb kid, but he's matured now."? Or is it, "He's keeping his true feelings under wraps now that he's in the NFL."?
Unfortunately this article doesn't have the posts in question:
I did want to judge for myself since I hadn't heard of these charges before now, and even went so far as to search for his old posts in question outside of the evidence-lacking article that was linked.
It seems what makes Bosa a "racist" in today's cultural climate is simply calling Kaepernick a "clown" even though his criticism was directed toward Kaepernick taking his knee on the anniversary of 9-11 and not the social movement Kaepernick was caught up in. Bosa's also been critical of celebrities, both black and white, but what apparently catapulted him into the realm of "racist" seems to be the audacity to direct posts at artists Beyonce, Jay-Z, and the movie Black Panther. None of the posts were outwardly racist, mind you, just critical of elements and agendas within the celebrity/movie production.
Oh, and he supports Donald Trump. Automatic "racist" qualifier, right there.
So, yeah, until I see some actual evidence of overt "racist" behavior, I'll continue to give him the benefit of doubt.
That's my judgment.
LOL. Well, I was more saying that in jest, along with the flat brim. I know sarcasm isn't always detected via text. I have no idea if he's really a racist. There are some questionable tweets and likes deleted, plus he dated a girl for a while who openly used the N-word. So chances are that he is, but my post was in jest.
Oh, also, I never said anything about our former President who now faces 91 felony counts and has to pay 85 mil to the woman he sexually assaulted. You're the one that brought him up.
Pretty much every game for the past 2 weeks has gone the opposite way that I've wanted, except for Detroit-TB.
I did not want either the Chiefs or the Niners, and coming into today I didn't know what I would do if it were that matchup. But after watching both games and listening to my gut, I hated the Niners far more than I hated the Chiefs today, so let's go Mahomes!
Yep. Let's go Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, Andy Reid, Chris Jones, Harrison Butker the Kicker ................. and freakin' effen Taylor Swift. Now go out and put on your Super Bowl game face ............. hit the pharmacy cosmetic sections and pick yourself up some red Taylor Swift lipschtick.
Here's one before Taylor:
Holy &%$@. Look at that thang!
The next time you get back to Green Bay we'll get BF004 to get us hooked up at one of your beloved karaoke joints ..... there you can get on stage and SHAKE YOUR BOOTY!
I did not know that Priest Holmes was on that 2000 Ravens roster. He went on to be such a stud with KC. Wonder what circumstances led to him being a backup to Jamal Lewis.
