Dibs

Yes there was no penalty nor touchdown......but everyone is astounded that the penalty at least wasn't called right? Had Tomlin done it on purpose he would have had to expect a penalty. But WHAT worked? The play very most likely would have finished the same regardless of his actions.....and now Tomlin awaits his punishment. Comparing the Tomlin act with the Hayes act as you have done is akin to comparing calculated premeditated murder to that of murder in the heat of passion. Tomlin calmly moved to that position on the field. Do you seriously believe his thoughts could have been anywhere near "I'll just move over here and step on the field a bit to slow the runner. It'll be alright. Nobody will notice."? .....and as to your football players comparison.....an equivalent situation would be something like a player casually walking into the opposition teams huddle, or doing exactly as Tomlin had done and step onto the field in order to effect a play. Your examples imply you believe that he was caught up in the emotions of the situation....thus his brain wasn't functioning properly. His calm actions however show a complete lack of being caught up emotionally in the situation. ....and being not caught up in the situation emotionally to the extent that his rational brain shuts down, he obviously would have been aware that his action could have no chance at helping his team or himself.

I am absolutely convinced that there was no intent on Tomlin's part whatsoever. Why? Because he is a HC of an NFL team who has coached a gazillion games before. If he committed the offense with premeditated determination, is there anybody who could possibly then believe that he would not have been fully aware of the consequences that would be incurred due to the act? He would have know that.... If he pulled back in time so as to not interfere with the play.....then regardless of the plays outcome, his team would incur a penalty and that he would very likely incur a fine. If he pulled back as he did where he slightly interfered with the play......then again, regardless of the plays outcome, his team would incur a penalty and he would definitely incur a fine, if not a suspension. If he misjudged his step back and accidentally makes contact with the player.....then yet again, regardless of the plays outcome, his team would incur a penalty(possibly being awarded the TD to the opposition) and he would definitely incur a huge fine, a suspension, and see his legacy as a winning NFL HC destroyed. With certain knowledge that his action could only end in a bad result for his team and himself......I can't see how there is any possibility that he would consciously put himself in such a position.

TE, OG, LB, WR in that order. Do people seriously think that the 95 year old Wilson is pulling the strings at this point in his life?

Because SJ is supposed to be our #1 WR who is due to earn $8.5M+ each year for the next 3 years......while SC is generally considered to be a stopgap type player who is paid accordingly. The point being that the expectations on SJ to perform are much greater than the expectations for SC to perform.

Regardless of what anybody wants, it is unlikely that SJ will be cut. His salary is $8.5M+ over the next 3 years.....and unfortunately we would have an $8.475M dead cap hit if we cut him this off-season. There will be a $3.2M saving if we cut him the following year though(with a $5.6M dead hit).

Hey! 10 dollars is 10 dollars! Kidding aside, I find it ironic that people will queue up for hours, struggle through the masses and fight for bargains that would likely save them less money than had they taken a part time job on the day. Furthering to that, most of the people there(and everywhere) would never even consider the amount of money that they would waste on a daily/weekly/yearly basis.

Have a look at the attachment I gave. There is a clear distinction at around the 2000 mark. Prior to then, there was a vast majority of statistical categories where SB winning teams were in the top 10(and a few 11th), with very few double digit rankings....and hardly any were in the 20s+ in any category. Post 2000 there are far fewer single digit rankings(particularly top 5)......and every team had at least one ranking in the 20s+. As there were several teams with horrible(bottom 7) rushing offenses or run defenses.....plus more with horrible pass D.....I'd say that controlling the LOS is certainly not a common theme. Maintaining a solid all-round team is virtually impossible in today's salary cap era. You'll also notice that I left a "?" for Flacco. He is an odd case IMO......merely a decent QB during regular season, but performs like an elite QB post season.

Apart from the excellent points from jaybee and metzelaars_lives above......there is a big difference between the terms "doesn't happen" and "hasn't happened".

This is the part that I find hypocritical in the NFL. Players on the field who are getting fouled, assaulted, abused and generally in a situation where emotions are extremely difficult to control are expected to maintain control and total focus in all that they do......and when they don't, they get penalized. Conversely, coaches on the sideline who are merely watching the events are given warnings if they let their emotions take over and step into the white zone.

Or a 2 yard TD contest. 5 attempts each from the 2 yard line.

I find myself agreeing with most of the points put forward so far in this thread.......but the root of what matter2003 is saying is undeniable IMO. Having an elite QB(or at least one who can have elite level streaks ala E.Manning & Flacco) is virtually essential to being able to win a SB. It is not to say that the rest of the team building is unimportant.....but in the modern NFL, the teams that win the SB usually do so without an overall solid team(unlike in times past, pre-2000).....and in fact often have glaring weaknesses in their overall play. Here is an attached word doc showing the statistical rankings for the last 27 SB winning teams. How to win a Super Bowl1.doc Though discussing the best way to build the rest of a team in the modern NFL is interesting, ignoring the cap and its ramifications on any particular philosophy makes any such discussions futile IMO. Though there is never a purely direct correlation between dollars spent and talent/production of players, to focus a large amount of the cap on one area invariably means lacking said talent/production in a different area.

I think the assumption you have made here that the Chargers were ready to fully commit to Rivers is pivotal in your conclusions with the Rivers/Brees situation. There is no evidence at all to think that had Brees not got injured that the Chargers would not have stayed with him. He had effectively shown himself to be a legitimately good QB verging on elite and his performance easily kept Rivers on the bench for 2 full seasons. To me it seems far more likely that had Brees not been injured, that the Chargers would have re-signed him and then recouped some of their initial draft investment by trading an unproven Rivers. The only real logic to draft a QB in the 1st round in the year after already drafting one in the first round is(as others have stated).....injury, the situation where one has the chance to land an elite prospect(pick #1 or #2), or where your 1st round QB has shown enough in his first year to have your talent evaluators drastically reduce their grading of his potential. IMO, selecting consecutive 1st round QBs is a totally fine concept. The problem however being that the same concept could be used in the third year....and fourth, which is not a tenable situation. Furthermore, there is no logic to suggest that the guy you have given up on and replaced as a starter......or the guy who wasn't good enough to get onto the field....would net you a reasonable trade return for your investment.

It isn't all fair......it's fairer.

That's illegal in most countries isn't it? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Shagger%27s%20Back

Their link to the most embarrassing Tom Brady photos: http://www.sportspickle.com/2013/09/photo-gallery-embarrassing-tom-brady-photos

I don't know why everyone is assuming over-eating or food related problems. This is an obvious case of Shagger's Back.

We'd better win this week or this 20 page thread will be as dead as a dodo.

I think my joke might have been a bit too subtle. He responded by saying that he didn't know how to respond....thus it was untrue as he had already responded.... Okay....wasn't worth the effort. Why thank you, guy covered in snow with hoodie.

That's obviously a lie.

I think what he was meaning that earlier in his career, when watching Vick, he would do things that made you say "How the hell is that possible?". In a similar way that I used to want to watch the Lions just to see Sanders play, I wanted to watch the Falcons just to see Vick play.

Surely the main focus should be on the simple fact that the play was effected by Tomlin......the extent of which becomes a distant secondary concern IMO.

Yeah, I understand their different roles(generally).....I was more interested in the importance of their positions in relation to the scheme we typically use if any.

I am wondering if any of the scheme-knowledgeable posters here might be able to give some feedback as to which safety(SS or FS) is more important to Pettine's defense? Jboyst62 maybe? Anyone with more understanding of this than me would do.

Those were my thoughts exactly! Every position is risky in the first round(and onwards). Looking at the success rates however you will find that the OL in general have a relatively high success rate compared to most positions......with OG being extremely high.