NFL 2010 Regular Season Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Ockeghem]

Sounds good, Scott.


BTW, Mendenhall had 95 yards rushing in the first half. I loved how he was able to stretch two and three-yard gains into five-to-eight yard gains on a few occasions. Those runs were killers for the Jets. There were a few times where he seemed to be running right through the Jets' defensive line. I didn't realize he had that much strength.

 

[Patrick Sun]

In the Packer-Bears game, had Hanie gotten hurt, what's the rule on the 3rd QB substitution? The announcers alluded to Cutler not being eligible to return even if he could at that point (not sure if Collins would come back). Would the Bear have been forced to go to a wildcat-ish QB situation, where a running back would take the snaps and run the offense?

 

[Johnny Angell]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun

In the Packer-Bears game, had Hanie gotten hurt, what's the rule on the 3rd QB substitution? The announcers alluded to Cutler not being eligible to return even if he could at that point (not sure if Collins would come back). Would the Bear have been forced to go to a wildcat-ish QB situation, where a running back would take the snaps and run the offense?

From what I heard them say, even the 2nd string QB couldn't have come back in. Why is there a QB substitution limit? What's the sense in it?

 

[Ockeghem]

I heard what Johnny mentioned above as well (that neither Cutler or Collins were eligible to return). It had something to do -- I think -- with not getting either of them in there before the clock ran out in the third quarter. This is a rule I don't understand, and one I had never heard of before yesterday.

 

[ThomasC]

Here's the QB substitution rule:

"Teams will be permitted an Active List of 45 players and an Inactive List of eight players for each regular-season and postseason game. Provided that a club has two quarterbacks on its 45-player Active List, a third quarterback from its Inactive List is permitted to dress for the game, but if he enters the game during the first three quarters, the other two quarterbacks are thereafter prohibited from playing."

The third quarterback is the 46th player, so you don't have to waste a 45th spot on a guy who will, in all likelihood, never play. It used to be if the third guy went in anytime, the other two couldn't play, but they changed it a few years back.

Basically, the third guy is for an emergency. And keeping the other two guys from playing makes sure you keep his use to emergency situations.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-25962.html


Hanie was listed as inactive before the game, so the rule was put into place.


http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/23181/chris-harris-desmond-clark-will-play

 

[Ockeghem]

^^^


Thanks, Thomas.


I believe this is the line that went into effect in yesterday's game:


"... but if he enters the game during the first three quarters, the other two quarterbacks are thereafter prohibited from playing."


I think had they allowed the clock to run out in the third quarter (without Hanie having entered the game before that point), either of the first two quarterbacks would have been allowed to return, yes?

 

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by Ockeghem

^^^


Thanks, Thomas.


I believe this is the line that went into effect in yesterday's game:


"... but if he enters the game during the first three quarters, the other two quarterbacks are thereafter prohibited from playing."


I think had they allowed the clock to run out in the third quarter (without Hanie having entered the game before that point), either of the first two quarterbacks would have been allowed to return, yes?

Yeah, that's how Buck and Aikman explained it.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Ockeghem

^^^


Thanks, Thomas.


I believe this is the line that went into effect in yesterday's game:


"... but if he enters the game during the first three quarters, the other two quarterbacks are thereafter prohibited from playing."


I think had they allowed the clock to run out in the third quarter (without Hanie having entered the game before that point), either of the first two quarterbacks would have been allowed to return, yes?

Yes, that is correct. This is one of several coaching mistakes I thought the Bears made in this game. Why not keep Collins in for the 1-2 extra plays to end the 3rd quarter, and then have all your options available for the remainder of the game? I wouldn't be surprised if the Chicago staff didn't understand the rule. Assistants Martz, Marinelli and Tice have all shown in past jobs that they are not too sharp when it comes to these types of in-game management decisions.


Scott, I have been pleasantly surprised by the development of Mendenhall. I was not very high on him coming out of college at Illinois, and he got off to a rough start as a rookie with the Steelers. However, the Pittsburgh coaching staff has been able to mold his talent into a very underrated, tough running back.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Oh, okay, now I get the QB substitution scenario. Thanks for the info.


I could see the Pittsburgh running backs coach just tying bags of sand on their RB's waist and telling them to run through walls of rubber tires repeatedly.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I didn't realize until I heard this on the radio last night, but the Packers are the 10th different team to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. That's ten consecutive different teams winning the conference title. The NFC is 3-6 in this span, pending the outcome of the game in two weeks. You have to go back to the Giants in 2001 (lost to Baltimore) to find the last repeat team.


Meanwhile, in the AFC over that span the Pats have been four times, Pittsburgh three, and Indy twice. The Raiders are the only solo representative.


Every other NFC team has won at least one playoff game during this span, except for the Lions. Detroit did not even qualify for the playoffs once during this smorgasbord era of NFC teams getting Super Bowl berths.

 

[Ockeghem]

Scott,


Yes, see post #316 above. Thanks for the additional information, though -- very interesting.


I think the AFC is a much stronger conference than the NFC this year. But as we've come to see in recent years, that doesn't always mean all that much in the Super Bowl game.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Ockeghem /forum/thread/303498/nfl-2010-regular-season-discussion-thread/330#post_3774906

 

[Patrick_S]

Congrats to the World Champoin Green Bay Packers.

 

[Johnny Angell]

The SB is over and my impression is that it was more the Steelers lost than GB won. Without the turnovers, the Steelers were, if not dominant, at least had the advantage. The penalty on the Steeler kickoff return followed by the interception was a killer. Combine that with the fumble in the second half when the Steelers looked to be in the driver's seat and there's the game.


In fairness to GB, they scored on every turnover against the Steeler defense.

 

[Malcolm R]

As is usually the case, the Steelers just cannot seem to play a game without digging themselves a huge hole. If your offense makes three turnovers, and your defense cannot stop the opposition from scoring on those turnovers, you will lose. Especially if your offense sputters the rest of the time.


That said, if the Steelers had to lose the Super Bowl to someone, I'm glad it was the Packers.

 

[dmiller68]

It was a great Superbowl overall. It was the best halftime show I have seen in years.


Congrats to the Packers!!

 

[EricW]

and Aguilera screwed up on the lyrics to the NATIONAL ANTHEM.


i guess that's what happens when you don't lip sync


http://tv.gawker.com/#!5753404/watch-christina-aguilera-fumble-the-lyrics-to-the-national-anthem-at-super-bowl-xlv

 

[Patrick_S]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell

The SB is over and my impression is that it was more the Steelers lost than GB won. Without the turnovers,....blah blah blah..

The only problem with that line of thought is that conveniently forgets that each turnover was a result of a good Packer defensive play.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Originally Posted by EricW

and Aguilera screwed up on the lyrics to the NATIONAL ANTHEM.


i guess that's what happens when you don't lip sync


http://tv.gawker.com/#!5753404/watch-christina-aguilera-fumble-the-lyrics-to-the-national-anthem-at-super-bowl-xlv

I was in the the car on my way to a Super Bowl party, and listened to her sing the national anthem, and I was so confused when she screwed up the lyrics, but was relieved to find out that it was Christina who screwed them up (and not me, who was singing along in his head at the time).

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Patrick_S

The SB is over and my impression is that it was more the Steelers lost than GB won. Without the turnovers,....blah blah blah..

The only problem with that line of thought is that conveniently forgets that each turnover was a result of a good Packer defensive play.

[/QUOTE]

Not only that, the Packers took advantage of the turnovers, scoring after them. How does committing zero turnovers to three for the other team not make them better?