Re: The 54th Super Bowl
Posted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:49 pm
I’m with Shirley.
It's the sixth version of The Swamp. What could possibly go wrong?
http://www.sportsfrog.net/phpbb/
Then a 40-second clock would be a 41-second clock? Or a 25-second clock would be a 26-second clock?Giff wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:38 pmWhen there's 1.0 seconds left and then the next is 0.9. Now imagine that clock doesn't show the .9. Should it be a shot-clock violation?Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:00 pmI don't think that's right. That would imply that it either goes to 0 with nearly 1 second left (it doesn't) or that it stays at 1 for two seconds (it doesn't).Giff wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:37 pmWhen it flips to 1 in college basketball clocks, there are 1.9 seconds left.Jerloma wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:11 pm It's definitely zero when it hits zero. When it flips to 1, that means there's one second left. A second later it flips to zero. Nothing complicated about it at all.
That spinny think that the Chiefs did pre-snap on the first 4th down conversion was really cool. Fucking Friday Night Lights shit.
Maybe NFL game clocks are set-up where when they hit start it starts at 25.9, but my guess when they hit start, it's 25->24.9.
Between 2.0 and 1.1, it shows 2. Between 1.0 and 0.1, it shows 1. That's why when there's an inbounds with a 1 showing on the shot clock they'll say that you really don't know how much time is left. When it hits 0, the shot clock has expired.Giff wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:38 pmWhen there's 1.0 seconds left and then the next is 0.9. Now imagine that clock doesn't show the .9. Should it be a shot-clock violation?Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:00 pmI don't think that's right. That would imply that it either goes to 0 with nearly 1 second left (it doesn't) or that it stays at 1 for two seconds (it doesn't).Giff wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:37 pmWhen it flips to 1 in college basketball clocks, there are 1.9 seconds left.Jerloma wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:11 pm It's definitely zero when it hits zero. When it flips to 1, that means there's one second left. A second later it flips to zero. Nothing complicated about it at all.
That spinny think that the Chiefs did pre-snap on the first 4th down conversion was really cool. Fucking Friday Night Lights shit.
Maybe NFL game clocks are set-up where when they hit start it starts at 25.9, but my guess when they hit start, it's 25->24.9.
Smith got too much credit for being good some of the time, IMO. It's a shame because he was hella talented and when he did go downfield he threw dimes but he'd rather prance around at the first hint of a pass rush and turn a 20 yard gain into a 2 yard run.Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:32 amThe moment that the limitations of the Chiefs' offense pre-Mahomes were evident was the season opener in 2017 when the Chiefs beat the Patriots. Smith finally went downfield often (with success!) and it wasn't like those shots were there just for the first time. It was just the first time that he took them on a regular basis.Gunpowder wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:26 am But yeah all the Andy Reid stuff was largely because McNabb and particularly Alex Smith would not take the shots that he gave them. McNabb was definitely a good QB despite all the hem hawing from Rush Limbaugh types but he was turnover averse and Alex Smith thought that waiting for a deep route to develop caused cancer. That just makes your time management look worse than it is since they can put together long methodical drives that take forever to move the ball.
My favorite was the like 12 minute drive against the Patriots in 2015 or whatever year it was that they lost to them in the playoffs. I probably put a lot of that on Reid when in reality it's almost all Alex Smith.
Smith got too much shit too. He was a perfectly fine quarterback in a hot take era where you're either bad or great and there's no in-between. He fit squarely in that in-between and won't get the credit he deserves for where the Chiefs are at this point. But yes, he did have some limitations; and those are especially evident now with his replacement becoming the best QB in the league.
I would add that the phenomenon about the Chiefs offense suddenly opening up in 2018 is exactly what happened in San Francisco. Kaepernick was certainly not on Mahomes' level (few are), but he was at least willing to push the ball downfield to WRs. Kaep took over as a starter in the 10th game of the 2012 season and Crabtree's targets and yards/reception immediately spiked. Counting playoffs, Crabtree had 94 targets in the 9 games started by Kaep and 61 targets in the 9 games started by Smith. He also had big spikes in yards and TDs after the QB change.Gunpowder wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:57 amSmith got too much credit for being good some of the time, IMO. It's a shame because he was hella talented and when he did go downfield he threw dimes but he'd rather prance around at the first hint of a pass rush and turn a 20 yard gain into a 2 yard run.Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:32 amThe moment that the limitations of the Chiefs' offense pre-Mahomes were evident was the season opener in 2017 when the Chiefs beat the Patriots. Smith finally went downfield often (with success!) and it wasn't like those shots were there just for the first time. It was just the first time that he took them on a regular basis.Gunpowder wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:26 am But yeah all the Andy Reid stuff was largely because McNabb and particularly Alex Smith would not take the shots that he gave them. McNabb was definitely a good QB despite all the hem hawing from Rush Limbaugh types but he was turnover averse and Alex Smith thought that waiting for a deep route to develop caused cancer. That just makes your time management look worse than it is since they can put together long methodical drives that take forever to move the ball.
My favorite was the like 12 minute drive against the Patriots in 2015 or whatever year it was that they lost to them in the playoffs. I probably put a lot of that on Reid when in reality it's almost all Alex Smith.
Smith got too much shit too. He was a perfectly fine quarterback in a hot take era where you're either bad or great and there's no in-between. He fit squarely in that in-between and won't get the credit he deserves for where the Chiefs are at this point. But yes, he did have some limitations; and those are especially evident now with his replacement becoming the best QB in the league.
They should have massacred the Steelers in 2016 and there was one reason they did not.
I think the too much credit thing goes into the binary thought process as well. He had times where his stat line *looked* great. And he was relatively efficient while not being explosive.Gunpowder wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:57 am
Smith got too much credit for being good some of the time, IMO. It's a shame because he was hella talented and when he did go downfield he threw dimes but he'd rather prance around at the first hint of a pass rush and turn a 20 yard gain into a 2 yard run.
They should have massacred the Steelers in 2016 and there was one reason they did not.
Last time I checked, there's no single party promoting that people provide ID to watch television.Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:09 am imagine thinking how smart this take is when, you know, people under 18 aren't prohibited from watching the Super Bowl (among other voting disqualifications
Or preventing convicted felons from voting, or resident aliens...L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:17 amLast time I checked, there's no single party promoting that people provide ID to watch television.Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:09 am imagine thinking how smart this take is when, you know, people under 18 aren't prohibited from watching the Super Bowl (among other voting disqualifications
Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:02 amI think the too much credit thing goes into the binary thought process as well. He had times where his stat line *looked* great. And he was relatively efficient while not being explosive.Gunpowder wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:57 am
Smith got too much credit for being good some of the time, IMO. It's a shame because he was hella talented and when he did go downfield he threw dimes but he'd rather prance around at the first hint of a pass rush and turn a 20 yard gain into a 2 yard run.
They should have massacred the Steelers in 2016 and there was one reason they did not.
At the very least, Smith gets credit for being a credible starting QB for a franchise that was in dire need of one since the retirement of Trent Green. And while he didn't single-handedly win the Chiefs many games, he was also not terrible enough for them to lose games either (just five multi-pick games in a Chiefs uniform). And he would have been a capable QB for, what, half the league? He was basically a league-average to slightly above at times QB.
Shit, this is also a pretty good timeline too
Smith to KC for No. 34 in 2013 (Justin Hunter) and No. 56 in 2014 (Cody Latimer)
Smith starts for five seasons in KC
Smith to WAS for No. 78 in 2018 (Malik Jefferson by the Bengals in a trade that netted the Chiefs Breeland Speaks and Dorian O'Daniel) and Kendall Fuller
If Kaepernick were in the same situation (hypothetically) but a year earlier (ie he's not like a rookie or whatever that someone might use to argue against this point), they would have blown the doors off of the Giants.Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:07 am I would add that the phenomenon about the Chiefs offense suddenly opening up in 2018 is exactly what happened in San Francisco. Kaepernick was certainly not on Mahomes' level (few are), but he was at least willing to push the ball downfield to WRs. Kaep took over as a starter in the 10th game of the 2012 season and Crabtree's targets and yards/reception immediately spiked. Counting playoffs, Crabtree had 94 targets in the 9 games started by Kaep and 61 targets in the 9 games started by Smith. He also had big spikes in yards and TDs after the QB change.
Yeah but then you went on to support it.
sure, but most every QB not named Patrick Mahomes is bad enough to lose games for his team. my point was that while he wasn't great he also wasn't a QB who cost his team by being worse than average on a regular basis. Kirk Cousins, as mentioned above, is a great comp. He's a perfectly fine QB. The Vikings would be a lot better if he was awesome. But they're also good because he's not a below-average/bad QB either.
the bolded part should be way more on the team than the player. it ain't the QB's fault on the "problem" because the team decided to pay the average guy a wayyyyyy above average salary
That's Andy Dalton.Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:55 pm there has to be a middle tier to be able define what average actually means
There are so many factors that complicate this....ie, are Kirk Cousins, an average-ish QB, and Alex Smith, a highly-skilled QB who plays like he was just signed as an emergency starter last week, both average? Is Josh Allen average with the scatterbrained-ness of Alex Smith, the arm of a Greek god, and the ability to occasionally play well enough to carry your team by itself while also losing close games because he can't hit a swing pass? I don't really know. I mean I guess it has to all be reduced down to one ranking but it's not clean.Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:55 pm there has to be a middle tier to be able define what average actually means
Not at all. And that's what I was trying to get at with by saying that it's too simplistic to say a QB is good or bad because ... where do those guys fit? This average middle tier I'm thinking of is vast and ambiguous and comprised of a lot of the guys who we don't think of at the top of the spectrum like Mahomes, Rodgers and Wilson and the guys we don't think of at the bottom like Bortles, Trubisky (at the moment) and the shell of Flacco.Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:55 pmThere are so many factors that complicate this....ie, are Kirk Cousins, an average-ish QB, and Alex Smith, a highly-skilled QB who plays like he was just signed as an emergency starter last week, both average? Is Josh Allen average with the scatterbrained-ness of Alex Smith, the arm of a Greek god, and the ability to occasionally play well enough to carry your team by itself while also losing close games because he can't hit a swing pass? I don't really know. I mean I guess it has to all be reduced down to one ranking but it's not clean.Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:55 pm there has to be a middle tier to be able define what average actually means