Oh god, is this really still a thing? It’s 2016. We have every number imaginable at our fingertips. Stop using convenient team stats to weigh the value of players.

“We’re trading away Charles Barkley for Robert Horry because Charles has no rings”. “Trent Dilfer > Dan Marino”. etc... what a joke.

As someone who uses the ‘burden of proof’ argument quite often, you are 100% correct in stating that ‘pillbinge’s usage is completely ridiculous.

It’s obviously not that cut and dry. If something reduces player safety extremely minimally, it may not be worth erasing an important part of the game (kickoffs/special teams). So... if a rule sacrifices the integrity of the game at a level that outweighs the increase in player safety, then yes...it means you don’t do…

No. He hasn’t tried fighting an entire arena yet.

“Lucked out a bit” could be said about any punch that lands, ever. (See: Conor vs Aldo)

Fuck.

Worst troll in the thread.

Really bad call. Sounded like he was calling a chess match.

This article reads like it was written by two different people midway through. Also, I missed the part where you talk about what makes this team “fun as hell”, or “fun” period.

Thx for weighing in

I mean, couldn’t Griff Whalen just simply look at what was in front of him and know not to snap the ball?

Frank Caliendo is only funny to the 50 year old Dad who has Mall Cop in his top 10 comedy films. Stop.

That call was almost as amazing as the catch.

Personally, no, but I’m also not in charge of a billion dollar brand (nor am I the head of a billion dollar brand who endorses the NFL/it’s players). As someone who works in branding, if I were employed by the NFL, I’d probably greatly value cohesion and also understand that if you permit one player to deviate from…

It HAS to be a blanket rule. It’s all or none. Why should the NFL ask itself, “Is this player’s sob story enough to warrant him wearing (insert color) all season?”...

What’s the realistic solution here? Should every player be allowed to wear pink for every game? And then, why discriminate at pink? Why not baby blue for prostate cancer? Or (insert color here) for (insert terminal illness here)? The line has to be drawn somewhere, no?

If a team had a kicker, in the past 20 years, who missed 95% of PATs from the 2-yard line, and thought they had a 50% 2-point-conversion rate, they’re probably really idiotic for not going for 2 (at least some of the time). You wouldn’t be making a case for their intelligence, you’d be making a case for them not…

Do you really think a sample size of 11 is indicative of anything? Additionally, do you really think offenses, who now have a justified reason to structure and practice a 2-point-conversion playbook, should be compared to the past?

Uhm...because the rule has changed from the two-yard line to the 15 yard line, thus dropping the efficiency of PAT’s made. How can you possibly disregard a yard 13-yard difference? Did you not read this article (or any of the other statistics-based articles pertaining to this?).

I don’t think any coach, Belichick or other, has the sample size of information needed to effectively calculate anything pertaining to this brand new rule.