Week 9 Snap Counts and some thoughts

[Stout]

Dude you need to reread your own posts. I can’t keep doing your thinking for you.

You literally said, in post 12 that “if he can’t do it then let’s be honest he is not the qbof”. Later you said “in no world did I say he wasn’t the qbof”.

There's a difference between "can't" and "isn't." If I thought for a minute he couldn't run every single basic play, yes, I'd want him gone. I think he could and wants to but that the coaches don't want him to. But, hey, I can't keep reading basic English for you.

You can keep insulting me, and then not acknowledge doing so, then pile insults on top, but that says more about you than me, ya know?

 

[Stout]

Dude… it’s a bad take. Hill used to come in for Brees the same way. That in no way meant Brees couldn’t be the man. Also, why would you even want someone small in there to do the play. You’d be purposefully putting yourself at a disadvantage. And if you’re doing the tush push, there’s no trick play out of that.

We see how laughable it is when others are pathologically unable able to admit they’re wrong about something really silly and obvious. Don’t follow that path.

Problem is, people are framing it as if I said he's not the QBOF. That is incorrect and grossly false. I'm not going to admit that's a bad take when it isn't my take. But it is a message board, and nuance is lost. The funny thing is, I came here on Monday full of praise for Kyler but, as usual, some here just take the tiniest negative thing I say and blow it aaaaaall out of proportion.

For the record, I am not trying to say Kyler is not the QBOF because he wasn't in on the tush push play. That would be a bad take.

Now you watch, Cheese. The vultures will descend with glee. Idiotic glee, but there you have it.

 

[bankybruce]

Problem is, people are framing it as if I said he's not the QBOF. That is incorrect and grossly false. I'm not going to admit that's a bad take when it isn't my take. But it is a message board, and nuance is lost. The funny thing is, I came here on Monday full of praise for Kyler but, as usual, some here just take the tiniest negative thing I say and blow it aaaaaall out of proportion.

For the record, I am not trying to say Kyler is not the QBOF because he wasn't in on the tush push play. That would be a bad take.

Now you watch, Cheese. The vultures will descend with glee. Idiotic glee, but there you have it.

I knew what you meant. That was why I replied about the play itself and not Kyler's future. I can read and speak Stout!

 

[oaken1]

Problem is, people are framing it as if I said he's not the QBOF. That is incorrect and grossly false. I'm not going to admit that's a bad take when it isn't my take. But it is a message board, and nuance is lost. The funny thing is, I came here on Monday full of praise for Kyler but, as usual, some here just take the tiniest negative thing I say and blow it aaaaaall out of proportion.

For the record, I am not trying to say Kyler is not the QBOF because he wasn't in on the tush push play. That would be a bad take.

Now you watch, Cheese. The vultures will descend with glee. Idiotic glee, but there you have it.

None of that matters. Quebec called you Daddy....it's a win

 

[daves]

The spike play costs the offense a down

Good point - I meant to include that factor in my alternative to the spike play, and have edited my post. A team wouldn't get a fixed number of timeouts - it could buy a 30 second timeout at the cost of a down. Just line up and signal the official, don't bother going through the motions of a pointless fake play. Having the QB throw the ball at the ground makes as much sense as having him do a jumping jack.

 

[daves]

There's a difference between "can't" and "isn't." If I thought for a minute he couldn't run every single basic play, yes, I'd want him gone.

I understood the distinction starting with your first post, but I don't see any validity to your take.

If for some reason Murray were completely unwilling or unable EVER to run a tush push play, it would not have one iota of impact on whether he's qualified to be the QBOF.

Any number of other players can run the play, and it makes just as much sense if not more to run it with a taller player like Tune (who can also run a fake) or a bigger and stronger player like Fotu.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Good point - I meant to include that factor in my alternative to the spike play, and have edited my post. A team wouldn't get a fixed number of timeouts - it could buy a 30 second timeout at the cost of a down. Just line up and signal the official, don't bother going through the motions of a pointless fake play. Having the QB throw the ball at the ground makes as much sense as having him do a jumping jack.

I like the premise but I have a question. The offense would have to line up and then call the timeout? If that's correct you do take away the possibility of a false start and 10 second run off. So I would think everyone has to be set before the time out is granted. I would think that only a player on the field could call it as well.

 

[daves]

I like the premise but I have a question. The offense would have to line up and then call the timeout? If that's correct you do take away the possibility of a false start and 10 second run off. So I would think everyone has to be set before the time out is granted. I would think that only a player on the field could call it as well.

That's how I would do it. Yeah, no false start possibility but then, you're not really trying to run a football play, you're just trying to stop the clock, so why make it look like an "incomplete pass" play? Just always seemed silly to me.

 

[outcent13]

Kind of like the way they changed the intentional walk in baseball. Maybe the “additional” timeouts can be called immediately after a play in bounds has concluded, team must be behind, under one minute in half, and comes with a seven second run off and loss of downs? Or some variation of that . They should do something similar with kneel downs at the end of games. If the time and timeout situation is such that three kneel downs ends it then just run the clock out and call it.

It’s an interesting suggestion that I’m sure Vegas would have an input on. It would help move games along at the end though.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Kind of like the way they changed the intentional walk in baseball. Maybe the “additional” timeouts can be called immediately after a play in bounds has concluded, team must be behind, under one minute in half, and comes with a seven second run off and loss of downs? Or some variation of that . They should do something similar with kneel downs at the end of games. If the time and timeout situation is such that three kneel downs ends it then just run the clock out and call it.

It’s an interesting suggestion that I’m sure Vegas would have an input on. It would help move games along at the end though.

Gamblers would like not having the kneel down or the spike as it effects prop bets. So Vegas would probably not like it.

 

[daves]

Gamblers would like not having the kneel down or the spike as it effects prop bets. So Vegas would probably not like it.

It would be trivial for them to adjust.

It's inane to count a kneel down as a "running play" for -1 yards to the QB, or a spike as an "incomplete pass play", when they're clearly not intended to be "plays" but simply clock burning / stopping moves that could be accomplished in a more straightforward manner by simply signaling to the officials that you'd like to burn a down and 45 seconds, or burn a down for a clock stoppage.

 

[oaken1]

It would be trivial for them to adjust.

It's inane to count a kneel down as a "running play" for -1 yards to the QB, or a spike as an "incomplete pass play", when they're clearly not intended to be "plays" but simply clock burning / stopping moves that could be accomplished in a more straightforward manner by simply signaling to the officials that you'd like to burn a down and 45 seconds, or burn a down for a clock stoppage.

The victory formation still allows for defensive opportunities. Been 20 years or so but I've seen a fumbled snap turn into a first down for the losing team.
Every time the ball changes hands there is the possibility for a turnover.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

The victory formation still allows for defensive opportunities. Been 20 years or so but I've seen a fumbled snap turn into a first down for the losing team.
Every time the ball changes hands there is the possibility for a turnover.

When Greg Schiano was coaching the Bucs, he took heat because he directed his defense to crash the LOS on kneel down plays.

 

[kerouac9]

The victory formation still allows for defensive opportunities. Been 20 years or so but I've seen a fumbled snap turn into a first down for the losing team.
Every time the ball changes hands there is the possibility for a turnover.

Also false starts on spikes happen all the time. Plus, it’s hilarious when some DL can’t get back onside in time.

 

[daves]

The victory formation still allows for defensive opportunities. Been 20 years or so but I've seen a fumbled snap turn into a first down for the losing team.
Every time the ball changes hands there is the possibility for a turnover.

Wow, once in 20 years? Definitely keep this sham play in the game for that!

Also false starts on spikes happen all the time. Plus, it’s hilarious when some DL can’t get back onside in time.

What a fun thing to watch! Great football.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Also false starts on spikes happen all the time. Plus, it’s hilarious when some DL can’t get back onside in time.

Snide much

 

[kerouac9]

Snide much

Huh? It’s legitimately hilarious when a DL can’t get back. Also, I think the Cards false-started on a spike years ago and lost because of the run-off.

I think Dave’s idea is awful.