ICTChris Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 I'm going with RiG. Going to get pished and pick a fight with Danny Shelton, I think I could take him. talking of getting pished, I see Johnny Manziel is being linked with the New Orleans Saints. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSaint Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, ICTChris said: I'm going with RiG. Going to get pished and pick a fight with Danny Shelton, I think I could take him. talking of getting pished, I see Johnny Manziel is being linked with the New Orleans Saints. New Orleans is a great city for a guy like him. I've got him in the Dead Pool so here's hoping. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, GingerSaint said: New Orleans is a great city for a guy like him. I've got him in the Dead Pool so here's hoping. What could possibly, possibly go wrong with him going there? I literally can't see any downside to this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSaint Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 minute ago, ICTChris said: What could possibly, possibly go wrong with him going there? I literally can't see any downside to this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 4 hours ago, GingerSaint said: New Orleans is a great city for a guy like him. I've got him in the Dead Pool so here's hoping. I can vouch from first hand experience, that New Orleans increases the likelihood of death. So much booze. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Manziel is one of the coolest c***s on the planet and NO is one of the coolest cities on the planet, match made in heaven. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Mark Sanchez. Mark. Fucking. Sanchez.f**k this planet, I'm moving to Mercury. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSaint Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said: Mark Sanchez. Mark. Fucking. Sanchez. f**k this planet, I'm moving to Mercury. He's a decent back up. Probably better than Mike Glennon too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Rule Change discussion has began. Can't find a full list but here is the Redskins list... Quote Amend Rule 15, Section 2, Article 1 (Instant Replay, pg. 65) The Redskins are proposing that teams can have an unlimited number of challenges that initiate Instant Replay so long as previous challenges in-game are successful. This eliminates the requirement that teams have to win their first two Instant Replay challenges to be awarded a third challenge. Teams would still get at least two challenges every game. Currently, three challenges is the max a team can receive in a given game. The Redskins cite “competitive fairness and integrity of the game” for this proposal. Amend Rule 11, Section 6, Article 3 (Touchback, pgs. 46-47) The Redskins are proposing a change in the line of scrimmage for any touchback where a free kick travels through the uprights to the 20-yard line. If a free kick does not travel through the uprights, the ball will be placed at the 25-yard line. Currently all touchbacks, regardless of if the ball goes through the uprights or not, result in the line of scrimmage starting at the 25-yard line. The Redskins cite “player safety” for this proposal. Additionally, the Redskins submitted three bylaw proposals: Amend Article XVII, Section 17.1 (F) (Cutdowns and Player Limits) The Redskins are proposing the elimination of the mandatory cutdown to 75 players on the Active list by 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the Tuesday after the third preseason weekend. This proposed elimination of the cutdown to 75 players before ultimately getting to the 53-man cutdown date -- by 6:00 p.m., New York time, on the Saturday of the fourth preseason weekend -- would provide teams more available players throughout the preseason schedule. The Redskins cited “player safety and player development” for this bylaw proposal. Amend Article XVII, Section 17.14 (Exemption List) The Redskins are proposing to permit a player who has suffered a concussion and has not yet been cleared for participation to be placed on the club's Exemption List and be replaced by a player on the team's practice squad on a game-by-game basis until the injured player is cleared. Any player that has been designated as “Out” on a team’s official game status report, submitted two days prior to the next game, will be automatically be placed on the Exemption List. Currently, players can only be on three lists: Active, Reserve or Exemption. The Redskins are proposing added a "Exemption List (Concussion)" notation in order to have the ability to add a practice squad player in their place until that player is cleared to return under the NFL's Head, Neck and Spine Committee's Protocols Regarding Diagnosis and Management of Concussions. A player may be designated as Exemption List (Concussion) an unlimited number of times during the season, as long as the player has not been cleared by the NFL's Head, Neck and Spine Committee's Protocols Regarding Diagnosis and Management of Concussions. Amend Article XIX, Sections 19.8(B) and 19.9(B) (Choice of Game Uniform) The Redskins are proposing the ability for teams to opt out of the “Color Rush” jerseys that were specifically created for Thursday Night Football. All 32 NFL teams were issued a “Color Rush” jersey during the 2016 season. With some teams having bright, monotone jerseys, the Redskins cited “garish uniforms” as the reason for the proposal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 All seems sensible to me with the exception of the "uprights" one, where I don't really get the point they're trying to make. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 I think they are trying to say the kicking team should get an extra 5 yards on D (O starts on 20 rather than 25) if the Kicker can put the ball between the uprights from kick off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 I don't like it. I'd rather we had rules which encourage teams to kick the ball to the opposition so we have more explosive kick returns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 I don't like it. I'd rather we had rules which encourage teams to kick the ball to the opposition so we have more explosive kick returns. Agree with this, they should be penalised for kicking it out the back of the end zone say start on the 45 - 50, or if the returner takes a knee they have to start from the 5 - 10.The argument is that injures can happen with 2 teams charging at each other 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said: I don't like it. I'd rather we had rules which encourage teams to kick the ball to the opposition so we have more explosive kick returns. Sadly more likely to see players fined for taking it out of the end zone and not making the 25 minimum a touchback would give you than more ways for explosive returns (which a large percentage are blown back for something that happened 50 yards away - 75 if Redskins returning. Think Redskins are asking for it because 1. The D sucks and 2. Hopkins did it more than anyone else Edited March 25, 2017 by Antiochas III 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Raiders will get enough votes tonight for the relocation proposal to pass, according to Schefter. Vegas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 On 3/25/2017 at 16:47, Antiochas III said: Sadly more likely to see players fined for taking it out of the end zone and not making the 25 minimum a touchback would give you than more ways for explosive returns (which a large percentage are blown back for something that happened 50 yards away - 75 if Redskins returning. Think Redskins are asking for it because 1. The D sucks and 2. Hopkins did it more than anyone else Seems to be mostly the Skins making proposals, apparently this is the full list (CC = proposed by the Competition Commission): Playing Rules 1. Protect the long snapper from contact for 1 second (PHI) 2. Abolish line leaping on field goal and extra-point kicks (PHI) 3. Expand the crown hit rule to be a foul even if player turns head to the side (PHI) 4. Expand coach’s challenge to any call except “hands” fouls (holding, pass interference, illegal contact) and unsportsmanlike conduct; and a 3rd challenge if at least one challenge is successful (PHI) 5. Allow a 3rd challenge if at least one challenge is successful, and unlimited thereafter as long as each challenge is successful (WAS) 6. All touchbacks to the 25-yard line, except kickoffs through the uprights would be a touchback to the 20 (WAS) 7. Coach may challenge any call at any time in the game, except after a turnover or score. (BUF-SEA joint) 8. Make permanent the automatic disqualification rule on the 2nd of certain unsportsmanlike penalties that was in effect in 2016 (CC) 9. Extend to 2017 only the rule that kickoffs would touchback to the 25, which was in effect for 2016 only (CC) 10. Reduce regular-season overtime to 10 minutes (CC) 11. Extend defenseless player protections to a receiver running a route, but not if he’s in a blocking posture (CC) 12. Extend the illegal crackback to an offensive player who was in motion (CC) 13. Make replay centralized in the league headquarters and have the referee participate via tablet (CC) 14. Multiple deliberate fouls to manipulate the clock are unsportsmanlike conduct, 15 yards and reset clock to time of snap (CC) 15. Expand 10-second runoff situations to apply after the 2-minute warning, not to under 1 minute (CC) Bylaws Proposals 1. Eliminate the first roster cut to 75 active players (WAS) 2. Create a Concussion Exempt designation and allow a practice squad call-up to become active (WAS) 3. Allow a team to opt out of “color rush” uniforms (WAS) 4. Expand hosting rules for draft-eligible workouts and examinations (CC) 5. Change return rules from Reserve/Non-Football Injury and Reserve/Physically Unable to Play lists to match injured reserve return rules (CC) 6. Personnel notices to be issued by the league office on Sunday during training camp and preseason (CC) Policy Proposals 1. Allow an alternate helmet color (new equipment) to be used with 3rd/color-rush jerseys (PHI) 2. Extend contract negotiation rules for head coach candidates still active in postseason (CC) 3. Allow non-football employees to work for another team during the season (CC) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Still no two-point conversion shootout to settle tied games. [emoji17]One year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 No wonder the Skins want to opt out of the Colour rush. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Raiders move to Las Vegas approved 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 31-1 in the voting, apparently. Miami the only team to oppose, which is random as f**k. I'd have thought Rams or Chargers, for logistical reasons, but whatever. Excellent news for the franchise, anyway. Not so much for the Bay Area fans, but unfortunately their city is just too poor to offer an alternative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.