Stanford in the NFL - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford in the NFL (/thread-12986.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford in the NFL (/thread-12986.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Stanford in the NFL - CTcard - 11-08-2016
(11-08-2016, 03:53 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:But was the play dead? It was a penalty, but an offsides penalty gives the offense a free play. So, if the Bills had made the field goal, they could have declined the penalty and taken the points.
I didn't watch the game or the play, but the ESPN article commenting upon Ryan being upset also stated that, "The play was blown dead because of Sherman's penalty." In addition the discussion in the article included comments from the refs saying they couldn't tell if Sherman could have heard the whistle.Â
Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-08-2016
Under what circumstances is the play allowed to progress, as in the "free play" that happens when the ball is snapped when a defensive player is offsides? And when do referees allow the free play versus blow the play dead?
Re: Stanford in the NFL - DC 86 - 11-08-2016
If a defender is "unimpeded" in such a situation then officials are supposed to blow the whistle, thus negating the free play for the safety of the offensive player.
Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-09-2016
Oy. That never works...I've seen a similar situation (but not on special teams) where a player also claimed that he didn't hear the whistle. It was an OU defensive player who put a heck of a hit on Colt McCoy...of course he wouldn't have heard a whistle. Lots of plausible deniability.
Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-10-2016
In case anyone's wondering, Ty Montgomery has been a pretty decent running back for the Packers. From the ESPN fantasy football notes on Wednesday:
Quote:Head coach Mike McCarthy called Montgomery a three-down back Wednesday, Rob Demovsky of ESPN.com reports. "I think you have to get past his number, No. 88," McCarthy added. "He's a 225-pound, and he's physical."
Spin: Due to the dearth of options available to the Packers' offense, Montgomery has served as the lead running back on two occasions over the last three games, notching 16 carries for 113 yards. On top of the impressive output on the ground, he's tacked on 13 receptions (on 16 targets) for 104 yards. The backfield could soon include James Starks (knee), who is expected to be limited in Wednesday's practice and take part in a full-padded session Thursday, according to Wes Hodkiewicz of the team's official site. However, Starks will likely be eased into action upon getting cleared for game action, so Montgomery doesn't appear to be in danger of losing his current gig.
Ty was listed as 216 lbs on another site, so maybe he's been bulking up lately.Â
From the ESPN fantasy football notes on Sunday:
Quote:Montgomery (illness) had seven carries for 53 yards and caught three of four targets for 38 yards in Sunday's 31-26 loss to the Colts.
Spin: Montgomery returned from a one-game absence, and looked awesome in the open field. making defenders miss on several plays. He led the Packers' backfield in rushing attempts, as Don Jackson carried the ball four times for just 16 yards. James Starks (knee) is expected back soon, but Montgomery should continue to remain involved. Next up for the Packers are the Titans.
Re: Stanford in the NFL - JJJ - 11-10-2016
Watching these highlight clips, it's remarkable how similarly his plays are to how McCaffrey is being used now. (I didn't notice the play where he ran through some UW? defenders and dragged them into the endzone.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBdrCoLIJJU
Re: Stanford in the NFL - JJJ - 11-10-2016
There were financial consequences for Sherman after all.
Quote:The NFL fined Sherman $9,115 for unnecessary roughness, Pro Football Talk reported.
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/richard-sherman-fined-for-unnecessary-roughness-on-bills-k-dan-carpenter-193002972.html
Re: Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 11-13-2016
Doug Baldwin has two touchdowns for the Seahawks against the Patriots.
BC
Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-13-2016
Richard Sherman had an incorrect facemask penalty called against him. The broadcast video clearly showed that the shoulder pad and not the facemask was what Sherman had grabbed...but I guess the ref wasn't going to see it any other way after last week?Â
Re: Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 11-13-2016
Sherman comes up with a big fumble recovery.
BC
Re: Stanford in the NFL - BostonCard - 11-13-2016
Baldwin with his third TD tonight!
BC
Re: Stanford in the NFL - FarmBoy - 11-13-2016
It was a great game. Seven lead changes? Stanford guys had big impact. I've become a Seahawks fan the past few years. I used to root for ADB and RS to have great games but their team to lose. I don't even harbor anything against PC.
Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-13-2016
PC should thank Stanford for providing such talented football players for his team :)Â More importantly, the Seahawk offensive line is starting to look a lot better...
Re: Stanford in the NFL - stupac2 - 11-14-2016
(11-13-2016, 10:11 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:PC should thank Stanford for providing such talented football players for his team :)Â More importantly, the Seahawk offensive line is starting to look a lot better...
I'm not sure if it's the Seahawks' OL getting better or if Wilson is finally healthy. He was moving around a lot better than even on Monday against the Bills.
Re: Stanford in the NFL - fullmetal - 11-14-2016
Probably both given the multifactorial nature of the game.