Packers Huddle

It astounds me how much the Bears still suck.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2023 22:51

It astounds me how much the Bears still suck.

It just means all is right with the world.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2023 21:57

Al Michaels said he'd like to see the one time Hurts failed the sneak:

Packers have been incredible stopping QB sneaks the past 2+ years. Wonder if teams will stop trying them soon.

Bears didn’t seem bothered, lol.

So remind me again, what is the downside to not having the fumble touchback rule be fixed?

If you fumble it out of the opposing end zone, why can’t it just be placed at the 1?

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2023 22:50

image.png

The only player that makes me have a little nerves as a Packers fan reading that list?

Kyle Orton.

Honorable mention: Caleb Hanie.

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 06:38

So remind me again, what is the downside to not having the fumble touchback rule be fixed?

If you fumble it out of the opposing end zone, why can’t it just be placed at the 1?

Why should it be given back? The endzone is the sacred space, the holy grail, the promised land. It is that which a team defends with everything they have and the other tries to penetrate and attain. It’s not like any other place on the field. The rule is fine and necessary in my book. It should hurt. You lost the one thing you were tasked with securing and it just happened to go where the defenders couldn’t have a chance to pick it up though you lost it in their house

You break into my house and lose your keys to the getaway car, just give them back? Not a chance

musclestang wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 07:18

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 06:38

So remind me again, what is the downside to not having the fumble touchback rule be fixed?

If you fumble it out of the opposing end zone, why can’t it just be placed at the 1?

Why should it be given back? The endzone is the sacred space, the holy grail, the promised land. It is that which a team defends with everything they have and the other tries to penetrate and attain. It’s not like any other place on the field. The rule is fine and necessary in my book. It should hurt. You lost the one thing you were tasked with securing and it just happened to go where the defenders couldn’t have a chance to pick it up though you lost it in their house

You break into my house and lose your keys to the getaway car, just give them back? Not a chance

But you’ll happily give my keys back if I leave them in your kitchen, your office, your bedroom, literally 1/100” from your safe. But just as long as it isn’t physically in the safe?


I think it’s a bad rule and the fact that 1/2” can have such a drastic swing seems absurd to me.


I’m sure it’s there for a reason, given they haven’t corrected it yet, probably a strong reason. But i forget why and too lazy to google it.

It’s not a perfect analogy but I figured people would get the point.

So, when you lose the one thing you can’t lose in an opponents territory, why should you get it back?

musclestang wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 07:22

It’s not a perfect analogy but I figured people would get the point.

So, when you lose the one thing you can’t lose in an opponents territory, why should you get it back?

I get the point you are making, I guess I just don't like it. I don't like things that dont make sense, randomness that impacts the game more so than the players playing. Just seems weird that if you fumble it at the 0.1 yard line, or 0.1 yards further, it is basically a 7 point swing.

And again, you fumble it in enemy territory (past the 50) anywhere else and you do get it back.

I guess why wouldn't every fumble out of bounds be a change of possession then?

paco wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2023 22:04

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Sep 2023 21:59

Love hate game. Hate the Eagles, but love they are making MN look like poop.

I like several players, but HATE the fan base. Philly fans are worst in all of sports. They torch the town, literally, win or lose.

The fan base has always been twisted. I think it starts with their inferiority complex due to close proximity to New York and New Jersey influence. They used to rest on their laurels from the 1960 championship team, Concrete Charlie, old Franklin Field, etc (1985 Bears syndrome). Losing all those years between 1961 and whenever they won the Super Bowl with Nick Foles at QB took an irreversible toll on the fan base. Losing Doug Pederson irked them as well. The Redskins, Giants and Cowboys success permanently pierced their souls. They have great dedication to Dick Vermeil. The Vet was a great source of pride (it had a jail). They still talk about 4th and long.

Oh, I think they're funny people. Then know every excuse in the book for why they are not treated fairly (NFL scheduling, only three 1 pm games, lost both the D and O coordinators) They study the hell out of their injury list to help make excuses. The Jalen Reagor draft pick really irked the fans.

My advice if you want it ............. is to stay away from those people.

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 07:43

musclestang wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 07:22

It’s not a perfect analogy but I figured people would get the point.

So, when you lose the one thing you can’t lose in an opponents territory, why should you get it back?

I get the point you are making, I guess I just don't like it. I don't like things that dont make sense, randomness that impacts the game more so than the players playing. Just seems weird that if you fumble it at the 0.1 yard line, or 0.1 yards further, it is basically a 7 point swing.

And again, you fumble it in enemy territory (past the 50) anywhere else and you do get it back.

I guess why wouldn't every fumble out of bounds be a change of possession then?

because none of those areas are the endzone, where all the points are scored. The end game.

and it does make sense. It is impacted by the players. Protect the one thing your tasked with protecting and don't lose it in enemies backyard because you won't be getting it back.

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 07:43

musclestang wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 07:22

It’s not a perfect analogy but I figured people would get the point.

So, when you lose the one thing you can’t lose in an opponents territory, why should you get it back?

I get the point you are making, I guess I just don't like it. I don't like things that dont make sense, randomness that impacts the game more so than the players playing. Just seems weird that if you fumble it at the 0.1 yard line, or 0.1 yards further, it is basically a 7 point swing.

And again, you fumble it in enemy territory (past the 50) anywhere else and you do get it back.

I guess why wouldn't every fumble out of bounds be a change of possession then?

But this isn't a fumble out of bounds. It is a fumble out of the end zone. You take the chance to stretch the ball into the end zone and lose it then you live with the consequences. Otherwise, just accept where you were going down at or hold onto the ball.

williewasgreat wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 09:13

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 07:43

musclestang wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 07:22

It’s not a perfect analogy but I figured people would get the point.

So, when you lose the one thing you can’t lose in an opponents territory, why should you get it back?

I get the point you are making, I guess I just don't like it. I don't like things that dont make sense, randomness that impacts the game more so than the players playing. Just seems weird that if you fumble it at the 0.1 yard line, or 0.1 yards further, it is basically a 7 point swing.

And again, you fumble it in enemy territory (past the 50) anywhere else and you do get it back.

I guess why wouldn't every fumble out of bounds be a change of possession then?

But this isn't a fumble out of bounds. It is a fumble out of the end zone. You take the chance to stretch the ball into the end zone and lose it then you live with the consequences. Otherwise, just accept where you were going down at or hold onto the ball.

I hate the sideline fumble rules, to me the last person with possession should retain possession, meaning just touching the ball prior to it going out of play shouldn't amount to a turn over, we see so much duo action, one defender pops it out and another simply touches it and they get a turnover.
I think there is a rule that the side line (or EZ) and the ball is dead, meaning the EX just like the playing surface, the side line, can not cause a fumble because the ball is dead.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 09:22

I hate the sideline fumble rules, to me the last person with possession should retain possession, meaning just touching the ball prior to it going out of play shouldn't amount to a turn over

This is the case. Between the goal lines a fumble out of bounds goes back to the team who last possessed the football. A simple touch would not change possession.

This is the way i see it:

If you fumble and it goes out of bounds, we give the benefit of the doubt to the offense for 100 yards.

We give the benefit of the doubt to the defense for 20 yards—the twenty yards that are the most important and in which ball security is the most essential.

It’s a balance. Especially given the vast amount I’d research showing that fumbles themselves are somewhat controllable but recovering fumbles is luck, random.

You can’t just always give that luck to the offense. And when the game is on the line at the goalie, maintaining possession matters—just like we all credit Rodgers for having insanely few red zone interceptions.

You can’t fumble at the goalline. It’sa really really bad play and a really really big mistake. Why shouldn’t it result in a turnover?

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 09:26

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 09:22

I hate the sideline fumble rules, to me the last person with possession should retain possession, meaning just touching the ball prior to it going out of play shouldn't amount to a turn over

This is the case. Between the goal lines a fumble out of bounds goes back to the team who last possessed the football. A simple touch would not change possession.

thanks, I'am probably confused.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Sep 2023 09:42

This is the way i see it:

If you fumble and it goes out of bounds, we give the benefit of the doubt to the offense for 100 yards.

We give the benefit of the doubt to the defense for 20 yards—the twenty yards that are the most important and in which ball security is the most essential.

It’s a balance. Especially given the vast amount I’d research showing that fumbles themselves are somewhat controllable but recovering fumbles is luck, random.

You can’t just always give that luck to the offense. And when the game is on the line at the goalie, maintaining possession matters—just like we all credit Rodgers for having insanely few red zone interceptions.

You can’t fumble at the goalline. It’sa really really bad play and a really really big mistake. Why shouldn’t it result in a turnover?

I'll admit the change of possession rule is pretty random, but it sure raises the stakes at the goalline... And THAT I'm a fan of. Makes every reach for the end zone a do-or-die moment.

I'd hate it if it went "aaaand heeee's fighting for the goalline, REACHING FOR IT, BUT WAIT, HE'S HIT, THE BALL COMES LOOSE!!!!... aaaand goes out of the end zone. The offense gets the ball back at the X. Bad bounce for the defense. Great effort, tho. According to NextGen Stats the likelihood of the team on offense scoring is now 90%."

Is the loss of possession fair? If I wanted to watch a sport with fair rules, football would be about the last option, anyways. The O has so much advantage in the rulebook already, I like the D having one huge one in their favor.

The only part of the rule I don't like is this: a RB fumbles the ball into the EZ and one of his teammates is ready to pounce on it. But a defender reaches in and swats the ball out of bounds.

The defender was the cause of the ball going out of bounds but their team still gets the ball at the 20. I suppose it would be hard to determine intent though.