Sierra Foothills

Super impressed with Love tonight. I think going up against Rodgers has brought out his best.

Great football game. It's nice to have a good night cap at the end of football Sunday.

I understand and appreciate your take. When I have a moment I'll pm you on the discussion.

How about intentional grounding then?

Yeah!!! (Beat the &%$#@!^^$ Steelers!!!)

Pitt football coach Pat Narduzzi admitted that he felt guilty for not warning Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin about the poor condition of the Acrisure Stadium field after the team's October 4 game against Boston College. The field was re-sodded on the 21st and Pitt played on it yesterday. It's a weird combo of northerly latitude, natural grass field, and a major college and NFL team sharing a field. Not sure if this arrangement exists anywhere else.

I lied. 😄 AI Prompt: Are defensive backs taught to look back for the ball or not? Answer: The decision for a defensive back (DB) to look back for the ball depends on their position relative to the receiver and the type of coverage being played. It is not a universal rule to always look back; it's a calculated risk with situational benefits and drawbacks. When to look for the ball: When in "phase": If the DB is in a good position, often defined as being hip-to-hip or no more than an arm's length from the receiver, they are in a strong position to turn and make a play on the ball. Looking back in this scenario often results in an interception or pass breakup and helps avoid a pass interference penalty. On deep balls: On deep passes where a DB is running stride-for-stride with a receiver, turning to locate the ball is necessary to make a play. Coaches conduct "blind ball drills" where a DB practices turning their head late to track the ball and intercept it. When not to look for the ball: When out of "phase": If the DB is not in a good position, for example, a step or two behind the receiver, turning their head could cause them to lose speed and allow the receiver to gain more separation. In this situation, the DB is often taught to "play the receiver's hands" and try to swat the ball away only once the receiver's hands go up to make the catch. Reacting to a fake: Experienced receivers will often use head or shoulder fakes to trick DBs into turning early. If a DB turns to look for the ball before it is thrown, a receiver can use that opening to change direction and create easy separation. To avoid penalties: Playing through the receiver's hands without looking back can be a risky technique that invites pass interference penalties, as referees often penalize contact if the defender is not "playing the ball". Sierra Foothill take: Maybe these techniques are not universal across all coaching and that different teams/coaches have different philosophies?

I don't know what the coaching consensus is but I disagree with not looking for the ball. I would argue that: 1) A receiver can stop abruptly when the defender is blind to the ball, thus drawing an undeserved PI... the receiver doesn't even have to make an honest attempt at a catch... he can just wait till the last second and stop. 2) A defender looking for the ball makes a better case that he's playing the ball than if he's blind to the ball. 3) A defender looking for the ball has a better chance to rake the ball out.. trying to read the receivers eyes and arms can allow him to be deceived by a receiver who isn't giving any tells. We can go back and forth on this but this is as far as I'm going.

I don't know what you're suggesting. What I'm saying is that if a defender is looking back for the ball, he's less likely to run into the receiver.

There are people here who know football better than I and that insist that the cornerbacks are coached to not look back for the ball. I would not coach this way and one reason is because not looking back makes the defender more susceptible to this sort of PI situation. And how can you break up a pass or intercept a ball if you're not looking for it?

So far Doubs has dropped 2 and Kraft has dropped 1. In a game this close, one team having 3 drops is big.

Who's gonna be Hochuli's substitute for tomorrow night?

I think it stands for Yuengling.

Greg Olsen (who I thought was excellent today) described one of Cook's traits nicely when he said that Cook "gets skinny." Cook really has a knack for using his lack of size to squeeze into and out of crevices and seams.

I don't know how far Pittsburgh is gonna make it but I don't think Rodgers will be what holds them back.

Nevertheless, to look right and at the last second pivot left and throw a perfect strike to Metcalf is impressive to say the least.

Such an impressive throw by Love around Watt. Also, though he may be fragile, Christian Watson looks good in his return. On the other side, Aaron Rodgers looks to be in the best physical shape he's been since before his achilles injury.

They completely missed it... they kept talking about a guy wearing a Stetson who had his face painted... 😜

These teams strike me as very evenly matched. On another note, I was surprised to see that the NFC is 25-13 vs the AFC this year.

You're scaling everything... you're not getting small, are you?

After cleaning all day, she's gonna make you eat some "god-awful soup" for dinner?

I agree. Maybe they're playing a few different versions of dime? The DB breakdown in general is interesting.

And Dak's arm is plenty good.

Regarding your point about Hoecht, as Simon and others have pointed out, he also was taking snaps at DT so PFF didn't separate those snaps. Regarding Coleman, whether people care or not, one of the reasons he gets high snap counts is because of his run blocking.

This is a really good question. I don't have access to the All 22 so I really can't say. I'm often complaining during the games that the directors are way too interested in closeup shots and not interested enough with wide shots which often times convey more information. Answers to your question are exactly the type of insights I wish we received from the Bills beat reporters.