NFL offseason 2018

[WickerBill]

There's nowhere else to start except with McDaniels agreeing to terms, hiring a few coaches, and then backing out of the Colts job.

My two Broncos cents: He joined the team, immediately alienated the team's quarterback by trying to trade for an obviously inferior - even to Jay Cutler - backup Patriots quarterback, ran the #1 receiver off due to a "personality conflict", mortgaged the future to draft Tim Tebow, got the team embroiled in a cheating scandal (videotaping the opponent's practices - SURPRISE!)..... and went 11-17.

He then went to the Rams where he oversaw the worst offense in the league (12.1 PPG) and got his coach fired.

Then he went back to New England, where he found success again.


What is your opinion? Did the Colts lose their man, or did they get lucky he chose to not come?

[SteveH]

Ultimately McDaniels character was revealed. So in that sense, the Colts are lucky. Good luck finding someone, though. And didn't the Colts learn anything when the Bears announced Dave McGinnis was their head coach before the contract was signed? Different circumstances leading up to why McGinnis bolted but ultimately the situation is identical in that the announcement was made before the contract was signed. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[WickerBill]

Agreed. You see the ink on the paper before you tweet and blare the hire all over the internet.

[Insomniac]

The Colts are better off without him. Really any company is better off without employees who aren't happy/fully bought in to the company. I don't know if he'll be a good coach or not. He didn't get much of a chance in Denver. Obviously, there were mistakes, but he likely learned from them. Whether he succeeds in the future or fails, I don't think the Colts were lucky/unlucky. He ultimately didn't want to be there and they're fortunate to know that now instead of a month from now. I've seen reports it was because of his family or he just didn't feel like it was the right fit. It's not a good look to realize it that late in the process, but having looked for a new job recently, I can see how it may unfold. Not sure about what it means about his character. I think you can see it as god or bad.

[SteveH]

Agent drops Josh McDaniels after coach spurns Colts (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000915282/article/agent-drops-josh-mcdaniels-after-coach-spurns-colts)


"My word is my bond. Once you break that, there's nothing left," LaMonte told Garafolo.

POW

[nrc]

Yeah, dumb move by the Colts to broadcast it before they had it in ink, but better that McDaniels character was revealed (or re-revealed) before they wasted any more time on him.

McDaniels seems to think that he has accrued the same level of respect as Bill Belichick to be willing to burn so many bridges in one fell swoop. I have to believe that he'd only pull that move if he's been promised that he's the heir apparent in New England, but he's playing the frog to Kraft's scorpion. I think Kraft's number one priority is avoiding a loss of continuity in both coordinator positions at once.

McDaniels will probably get his chance but I don't think he's going to get any extra patience for less than sterling results. If anything he's setting himself up for failure because expectations in New England are so high.

[WickerBill]

I'm hoping they get Frank Reich, but I have a bad feeling it's going to be Jack Del Rio. I hope I'm wrong.


Bruce Arians as a 1-2 year caretaker has also been mentioned.

[SteveH]

Jim Schwartz?
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-colts-coaching-candidates-josh-mcdaniels-frank-reich-david-shaw-bruce-arians-jim-schwartz-jeff-fisher-andrew-luck

[WickerBill]

Colts hire Frank Reich, who has been fired 3 times in the last six seasons.


Still think he's the right guy.


And the Colts teasing themselves a little on Twitter:

967

[stroker]

There seems to be an assload of trades this season. Or is it just me?

[Insomniac]

There seems to be an assload of trades this season. Or is it just me?

Definitely way more than typical.

[WickerBill]

Safe to say the Browns won't go 0-16 again? They've added some talent at QB and WR, and have a lot of picks....

[Insomniac]

It's really hard to go 0-16 in the NFL. Even if the Browns had the same team I wouldn't bet they'd go 0-16. They will be more talented though.

[nrc]

They'll definitely have to work harder to go 0-16 this year. I don't see them pulling it off.

You know things are interesting when the Bengals are making trades and acquisitions before the draft. More hints there that Marvin Lewis got a little more sway in his renewal. Mike Brown is a die hard "draft first" guy. The Bengals have traditionally waited to see what they could get through the draft and then moved to plug holes with whatever they could find after the draft.

[nrc]

The NFL has finally clarified the catch rule. The new rule states that a catch is a catch and not a catch is not a catch. Or something.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000923342/article/nfl-teams-unanimously-approve-simplified-catch-rule

The new rules defining a catch include:

1. Control of the ball.
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as:
» A third step;
» Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
» Or the ability to perform such an act.


I assume that this means that all three must be true to complete a catch. This sounds like a good standard but it will be interesting to see how many incomplete passes now become fumbles.

[nissan gtp]

The NFL has finally clarified the catch rule. The new rule states that a catch is a catch and not a catch is not a catch. Or something.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000923342/article/nfl-teams-unanimously-approve-simplified-catch-rule


I assume that this means that all three must be true to complete a catch. This sounds like a good standard but it will be interesting to see how many incomplete passes now become fumbles.

I don’t watch a lot of football, but seems to me you should have to stay fully inbounds when crossing into the end zone.

[WickerBill]

I don’t watch a lot of football, but seems to me you should have to stay fully inbounds when crossing into the end zone.

That would only make sense if that was the rule for runners, too. All I want is the same rules applied to receivers as runners. Last season, in which the catch rule was at its worst, a RB could dive over the line, break the plane, and it's a touchdown, but a receiver basically had to cross the line, slow cook the ball in a crock pot and eat the thing before it was officially a score.

[Insomniac]

That would only make sense if that was the rule for runners, too. All I want is the same rules applied to receivers as runners. Last season, in which the catch rule was at its worst, a RB could dive over the line, break the plane, and it's a touchdown, but a receiver basically had to cross the line, slow cook the ball in a crock pot and eat the thing before it was officially a score.

The distinction there is the WR "caught" the ball near the goal line. A RB never takes a hand-off that close to the goal line. Catch the ball first, then you can do anything a RB does. Catch rule was at its worst because of Riveron/replay. Before Riveron could only apply his crazy view/standards to one game a week instead of them all.

I guarantee the reason most coaches were in favor was this means more fumbles.

[chop456]

That would only make sense if that was the rule for runners, too. All I want is the same rules applied to receivers as runners.

This.

[indyfan31]

So, if a receiver is at the back of the end zone both feet in-bounds, extends his body to make a fingertip catch then makes no other move except to fall to the ground it's not a catch because he didn't make a "football move"? :\

[nrc]

So, if a receiver is at the back of the end zone both feet in-bounds, extends his body to make a fingertip catch then makes no other move except to fall to the ground it's not a catch because he didn't make a "football move"? :\

I think that kind of scenario is the purpose of the "Or the ability to perform such an act" clause. Similar situation to a catch on the sideline - you have control, and both feet down but there's really no room to make a football move or take a third step. I think "Or the ability to perform such an act" is a judgement call that amounts to "if it looks like a catch".

[indyfan31]

I think that kind of scenario is the purpose of the "Or the ability to perform such an act" clause. Similar situation to a catch on the sideline - you have control, and both feet down but there's really no room to make a football move or take a third step. I think "Or the ability to perform such an act" is a judgement call that amounts to "if it looks like a catch".

Uh-huh. You'd think they could simplify the entire thing with just one rule: "if it looks like a catch" :shakehead:

[Don Quixote]

Waiting to see how the Brown's will screw up this draft. Extra credit points of they draft two players at 1 and 4, and neither of them sees the field. It could happen.