Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Captain Ned
DancinJack wrote:Talk about a dud of a MNF game. Ugh.
superjawes wrote:That's what Neil Paine said, too.I would point out the good games to watch this week, but besides Raiders/Cardinals and Bucs/Giants, every game should be good. They all have SOMETHING important happening. ... the games should be good.
DancinJack wrote:Kinda weaksauce they moved the KC/LAR game to LA. Could have played at a "neutral" site.
The Egg wrote:DancinJack wrote:Kinda weaksauce they moved the KC/LAR game to LA. Could have played at a "neutral" site.
I was reading that the condition of the field was so terrible that they’d be risking the safety of the players. Beyond bad. Many of the players were considering not playing.
DancinJack wrote:The second part though, about it being a home game for LAR, makes more sense now. I don't know where the "neutral" site would be, but I'm sure they could fill it up for the most part. Hell, do it in Tempe or Phoenix. (I don't care where I'm just picking a place between Mexico City, LA, and KC.)
UberGerbil wrote:The home team in these overseas matchups are required by the NFL to keep their stadium available (eg no booking concerts etc on the date) precisely for contingencies like this. It's never really a neutral site game; it's a home game played elsewhere (the home team has one less game played in their home stadium). So by rule if they weren't going to play it in Mexico City they were going to move it back to LA, and everybody on both teams knew that (even if some of the fans didn't).
DancinJack wrote:Well, originally the game was going to be in LA so the Rams were going to enjoy the ~7% NFL home field advantage (though it might be a lot less, given their current stadium situation). Then the game got "promoted" to Mexico City, and they lost that due to the neutral field. Now they have it back. The situation for their opponent is reversed, of course (though KC was going to get the usual 8 games with a home field advantage whereas LA was only going to get 7, and now that missing one is back). It doesn't make that much difference in any event, but I don't see the injustice here: the schedule is as it would have been but for the league's attempts to throw wrenches into both teams practice and preparation in the name of pushing the game into new markets.Yeah, I get that part. But let's not confuse it here. A game in Mexico City != a game in LA.
The Egg wrote:Are you sure about Mexico City making the most sense in terms of players not getting hurt? It's at 7,400 feet, 50% higher than Denver, and it has a significant air pollution problem. The teams had been making preparations to mitigate that (the Rams were practicing in Colorado Springs) but it was still going to be an issue. The games in Europe just have a longer plane flight (though not any longer than, say, the Seahawks playing in Florida) and some jet lag. I would suspect the chance of getting hurt at sea level in London is significantly less than at altitude in smog in Mexico City.Much like Thursday night games, I don’t like when they force teams to play overseas, because I think it puts them at a competitive disadvantage relative to other teams in their division. Of all the international cities, Mexico City probably makes the most sense though; I just wouldn’t want it to come at the cost of an important player(s) from two of the best teams getting hurt.
With all the NFL’s billions of dollars, you’ve gotta wonder why nobody knew or did anything about one of their marquee games until the last minute.
idchafee wrote:I don't like the idea of blaming coaches for losses. I think they get too much credit for wins, too much blame for losses.
That being said, Mike McCarthy's decision to punt with 4 and 2, with 4 minutes left down 3 and you have Aaron Rodgers was a pretty awful decision
The Egg wrote:I've always felt that offensive & defensive coordinators were the most important coaching positions. Of course they're chosen by the head coach to match his philosophy, but ultimately they set the schemes, create and draw up all the plays, and then do the playcalling. Of course there's input from the HC (and sometimes there's exceptions where the HC handles some or all of these duties), but the choice of coordinators is still huge.
Just look at the Bears this year --- 1st year head coach has an awesome defense mainly because he retained an excellent DC and kept continuity on that half of the team.
DancinJack wrote:The Egg wrote:I've always felt that offensive & defensive coordinators were the most important coaching positions. Of course they're chosen by the head coach to match his philosophy, but ultimately they set the schemes, create and draw up all the plays, and then do the playcalling. Of course there's input from the HC (and sometimes there's exceptions where the HC handles some or all of these duties), but the choice of coordinators is still huge.
Just look at the Bears this year --- 1st year head coach has an awesome defense mainly because he retained an excellent DC and kept continuity on that half of the team.
Doesn't hurt to get Khalil Mack at the start of the season, either.
Captain Ned wrote:The Butt Fumbler is now the backup QB for the 'Skins.
DancinJack wrote:The fact that Nathan Peterman got multiple starts could be the beginning and end of Kaep's collusion lawsuit.I mean, I don't care how anyone feels about Kaepernick at this point. The fact that Sanchez just got a contract and Kaep didn't is insane.
DancinJack wrote:Hmmm... Let's run down the 2018 ranking of total QBR and stop when we get to a quarterback that's playing worse than Kaepernick (who posted a 23rd-place QBR of 49.2 among the 30 QBs that played most of the 2016 season and a 29th place out of 33 with a QBR of 43.4 in 2015):Colin Kaepernick is better than at least half the QBs starting in the league right now.
