Tush Push - for fans that love replay reviews and NCAA commercials (2 Viewers)

[JAA]

If I'm an NFL GM, my first move would be go hire these guys and hand the smallest guy the ball while he soars for an automatic first down each time...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Except throwing a player is illegal .

All jokes here Joe, just trying to keep it light.

Otherwise known as "assisting", like the tush-push. Which is the whole point.

I don't see how that's any different. The end result is other players are helping the runner forward, whereas the DEF is NOT allowed to do any of that.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

Incorrect. You're the one that agreed that assisting a player was ILLEGAL. I even highlighted it above for you.

Philadelphia Eagles - Superbowl LIX Champions *

* very questionable

lol

You should have kept reading where I said I was incorrect. I was looking at an older version of the NFL rule book. It is in fact legal now.

So again, thank you for acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

 

[JohnnyU]

If I'm an NFL GM, my first move would be go hire these guys and hand the smallest guy the ball while he soars for an automatic first down each time...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Except throwing a player is illegal .

All jokes here Joe, just trying to keep it light.

Otherwise known as "assisting", like the tush-push. Which is the whole point.

I don't see how that's any different. The end result is other players are helping the runner forward, whereas the DEF is NOT allowed to do any of that.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

Incorrect. You're the one that agreed that assisting a player was ILLEGAL. I even highlighted it above for you.

Philadelphia Eagles - Superbowl LIX Champions *

* very questionable

Correct me if I’m wrong, because I’m a senior citizen and my memory might not be as good as it used to be, but wasn’t the Super Bowl a blowout?

 

[Snotbubbles]

If I'm an NFL GM, my first move would be go hire these guys and hand the smallest guy the ball while he soars for an automatic first down each time...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Except throwing a player is illegal .

All jokes here Joe, just trying to keep it light.

Otherwise known as "assisting", like the tush-push. Which is the whole point.

I don't see how that's any different. The end result is other players are helping the runner forward, whereas the DEF is NOT allowed to do any of that.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

Incorrect. You're the one that agreed that assisting a player was ILLEGAL. I even highlighted it above for you.

Philadelphia Eagles - Superbowl LIX Champions *

* very questionable

Correct me if I’m wrong, because I’m a senior citizen and my memory might not be as good as it used to be, but wasn’t the Super Bowl a blowout?

He got you with that stinky bait.

 

[JohnnyU]

If I'm an NFL GM, my first move would be go hire these guys and hand the smallest guy the ball while he soars for an automatic first down each time...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Except throwing a player is illegal .

All jokes here Joe, just trying to keep it light.

Otherwise known as "assisting", like the tush-push. Which is the whole point.

I don't see how that's any different. The end result is other players are helping the runner forward, whereas the DEF is NOT allowed to do any of that.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

Incorrect. You're the one that agreed that assisting a player was ILLEGAL. I even highlighted it above for you.

Philadelphia Eagles - Superbowl LIX Champions *

* very questionable

Correct me if I’m wrong, because I’m a senior citizen and my memory might not be as good as it used to be, but wasn’t the Super Bowl a blowout?

He got you with that stinky bait.

I wasn’t gotten by anything. I was being sarcastic.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The ramifications for field goals and extra points is also going to be fascinating when we get rid of that silly rule about defenders not being able to use other players to assist them in blocking kicks

Already rules regarding this

But the kick blocking rules and the throwing player silliness will be changing soon if we're establishing other players assisting the ball carrier is legal.

This is going to open up all kinds of interesting things.

 

[Joe Bryant]

If I'm an NFL GM, my first move would be go hire these guys and hand the smallest guy the ball while he soars for an automatic first down each time...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Except throwing a player is illegal .

All jokes here Joe, just trying to keep it light.

No joking here.

That will have to change once they clearly establish assisting players while carrying the ball is legal.

 

[BladeRunner]

If I'm an NFL GM, my first move would be go hire these guys and hand the smallest guy the ball while he soars for an automatic first down each time...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Except throwing a player is illegal .

All jokes here Joe, just trying to keep it light.

Otherwise known as "assisting", like the tush-push. Which is the whole point.

I don't see how that's any different. The end result is other players are helping the runner forward, whereas the DEF is NOT allowed to do any of that.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

Incorrect. You're the one that agreed that assisting a player was ILLEGAL. I even highlighted it above for you.

Philadelphia Eagles - Superbowl LIX Champions *

* very questionable

lol

You should have kept reading where I said I was incorrect. I was looking at an older version of the NFL rule book. It is in fact legal now.

So again, thank you for acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

I have acknowledged nothing of the sort, but you have acknowledged the play is illegal above. I can do this ALL day if you want.

Philadelphia Eagles - Superbowl LIX Champions *

* very questionable

 

[BladeRunner]

Sean McVay: Tush push “doesn’t look like football to me”​

Sean McVay: Tush push "doesn't look like football to me"

Rams coach wishes NFL had never allowed the play in the first place.

www.nbcsports.com

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sean McVay: Tush push “doesn’t look like football to me”​

Sean McVay: Tush push "doesn't look like football to me"

Rams coach wishes NFL had never allowed the play in the first place.

www.nbcsports.com

Interesting.

 

[Joe Bryant]

If I'm an NFL GM, my first move would be go hire these guys and hand the smallest guy the ball while he soars for an automatic first down each time...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

Except throwing a player is illegal .

All jokes here Joe, just trying to keep it light.

Otherwise known as "assisting", like the tush-push. Which is the whole point.

I don't see how that's any different. The end result is other players are helping the runner forward, whereas the DEF is NOT allowed to do any of that.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

Incorrect. You're the one that agreed that assisting a player was ILLEGAL. I even highlighted it above for you.

Philadelphia Eagles - Superbowl LIX Champions *

* very questionable

lol

You should have kept reading where I said I was incorrect. I was looking at an older version of the NFL rule book. It is in fact legal now.

So again, thank you for acknowledging the tushie pushie is legal.

I have acknowledged nothing of the sort, but you have acknowledged the play is illegal above. I can do this ALL day if you want.

Philadelphia Eagles - Superbowl LIX Champions *

* very questionable

For both of you, let's please drop the point to shirt thing and the *very questionable thing for the Eagles.

That doesn't help discussion. Thanks.

 

[trader jake]

Sean McVay: Tush push “doesn’t look like football to me”​

Sean McVay: Tush push "doesn't look like football to me"

Rams coach wishes NFL had never allowed the play in the first place.

www.nbcsports.com

Interesting.

I don't think the Tush Push will be banned this week. A vote will take place on the current proposal, but probably not reach the needed 24 votes.

The proposed rule includes language that leaves it open to some interpretation, and that's a big issue officiating the Tush Push already. Based on the conversations had this week and the post vote talk, I believe they'll rewrite the proposal to button it up and get enough teams on board to vote again in May.

That's when the Tush Push will be banned. That's my hope at least.

 

[travdogg]

I did like the quote today of, "If some of these guys were around during the days of Unitas, they would have voted to outlaw the forward pass"

Or Mike Vrabel's quote of, "Lamar Jackson shouldn't be allowed to run the football, how about making that rule? That's also tough to defend."

Looking at this as an unbiased Bears fan (I don't think they even ran it when they had Fields) this feels like such a sour grapes thing to me. Or as the kids would say, "get good, losers"

 

[BladeRunner]

I did like the quote today of, "If some of these guys were around during the days of Unitas, they would have voted to outlaw the forward pass"

Or Mike Vrabel's quote of, "Lamar Jackson shouldn't be allowed to run the football, how about making that rule? That's also tough to defend."

Looking at this as an unbiased Bears fan (I don't think they even ran it when they had Fields) this feels like such a sour grapes thing to me. Or as the kids would say, "get good, losers"

My response to this would be, at what point did Lamar Jackson get assistance from other OFF players running down field? Or at what point did The QB get assistance throwing the ball downfield? Or the receiver catching it?

The point is is that both of those analogies are like comparing apples to oranges. In neither of those examples are offensive players assisting the person with the ball so the comparisons make no sense.

The whole point is that the person with the ball is getting assistance from other offensive players moving forward.

And then there's the whole question of why can't the defense do the same thing? So they have two choices: they allow it for everyone on offense and defense OR they allow it for no one on offense and defense.

 

[Grahamburn]

Chris Jones got hurt in the Super Bowl. Did everybody miss that?

I'd say whatever about the play because I'm sick of Eagles fans circling the wagons about it, but people have gotten hurt while the play is going on. Jalen Hurts was one of them when he nearly got his face twisted off by that guy from Tampa Bay that time.

Vita Vea also hates this play. It’s cheap, but currently within the rules. You don’t like it? Stop it.

Maybe the most fired up I’ve ever been was that stop. Yelling “RIP HIS HEAD OFF!” At the top of my lungs.

 

[Faust]

Jordan Schultz
Sources: No vote today on banning the tush push. It’s being tabled to a future meeting.

https://x.com/schultz_report/status/1907078179585396797?s=61

Sources: There were 16 teams who were in favor of banning the tush push. That’s 8 short of the amount needed for the proposal to pass.

https://x.com/schultz_report/status/1907081853355401553?s=61

 

[ChicoCat]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

 

[ChicoCat]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

 

[Grahamburn]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

 

[Grahamburn]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

How many sneaks did Brady attempt? He might have had a few a year? Google AI tells me 157 in his entire career. So, about 8 a year. It's also the frequency with which it's being used. The Eagles get inside of what, 3 yards on 3rd/4th down they pretty much exclusively run this play. Multiple times per game. 50 times per year. It's boring. The NFL doesn't like boring.

The Eagles created the play so they've had significantly more time to build up their perfection of it. But, other teams are trying it now as well. The Bills were trying it against the Chiefs on every short yardage down it was mind numbingly boring. Nobody wants that in a Championship Game other than the team successfully running it.

I'm just suggesting that the NFL doesn't want non-competitive boring plays in their game. Whether or not their attempts at eliminating them have been successful is irrelevant.

 

[ChicoCat]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

How many sneaks did Brady attempt? He might have had a few a year? Google AI tells me 157 in his entire career. So, about 8 a year. It's also the frequency with which it's being used. The Eagles get inside of what, 3 yards on 3rd/4th down they pretty much exclusively run this play. Multiple times per game. 50 times per year. It's boring. The NFL doesn't like boring.

The Eagles created the play so they've had significantly more time to build up their perfection of it. But, other teams are trying it now as well. The Bills were trying it against the Chiefs on every short yardage down it was mind numbingly boring. Nobody wants that in a Championship Game other than the team successfully running it.

I'm just suggesting that the NFL doesn't want non-competitive boring plays in their game. Whether or not their attempts at eliminating them have been successful is irrelevant.

So if a team was dominant enough to get 5 yards a clip running that ball at a 90% rate....they'd ban that?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

How many sneaks did Brady attempt? He might have had a few a year? Google AI tells me 157 in his entire career. So, about 8 a year. It's also the frequency with which it's being used. The Eagles get inside of what, 3 yards on 3rd/4th down they pretty much exclusively run this play. Multiple times per game. 50 times per year. It's boring. The NFL doesn't like boring.

The Eagles created the play so they've had significantly more time to build up their perfection of it. But, other teams are trying it now as well. The Bills were trying it against the Chiefs on every short yardage down it was mind numbingly boring. Nobody wants that in a Championship Game other than the team successfully running it.

I'm just suggesting that the NFL doesn't want non-competitive boring plays in their game. Whether or not their attempts at eliminating them have been successful is irrelevant.

How did the Bills due with the play against the Chiefs, refresh my memory?

 

[JAA]

I did like the quote today of, "If some of these guys were around during the days of Unitas, they would have voted to outlaw the forward pass"

Or Mike Vrabel's quote of, "Lamar Jackson shouldn't be allowed to run the football, how about making that rule? That's also tough to defend."

Looking at this as an unbiased Bears fan (I don't think they even ran it when they had Fields) this feels like such a sour grapes thing to me. Or as the kids would say, "get good, losers"

My response to this would be, at what point did Lamar Jackson get assistance from other OFF players running down field? Or at what point did The QB get assistance throwing the ball downfield? Or the receiver catching it?

The point is is that both of those analogies are like comparing apples to oranges. In neither of those examples are offensive players assisting the person with the ball so the comparisons make no sense.

The whole point is that the person with the ball is getting assistance from other offensive players moving forward.

And then there's the whole question of why can't the defense do the same thing? So they have two choices: they allow it for everyone on offense and defense OR they allow it for no one on offense and defense.

At what point did the HB get assistance from from the FB running out of the I formation?

"get assistance"? Cmon now.

Hook and ladder? No no no no! Only hook, no assistance from the ladder!

/me sighs

 

[JAA]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Remind us again of the success rate of the tush push vs traditional QB sneak? Or are we considering banning the QB sneak because of its success rate?

BTW - what is the success rate of a play for it to be considered boring? Asking for a pointy tipped friend ...

 

[JAA]

Illegal Getting Assistance on the play, 10 yards, replay the down

 

[sm8680]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

How many sneaks did Brady attempt? He might have had a few a year? Google AI tells me 157 in his entire career. So, about 8 a year. It's also the frequency with which it's being used. The Eagles get inside of what, 3 yards on 3rd/4th down they pretty much exclusively run this play. Multiple times per game. 50 times per year. It's boring. The NFL doesn't like boring.

The Eagles created the play so they've had significantly more time to build up their perfection of it. But, other teams are trying it now as well. The Bills were trying it against the Chiefs on every short yardage down it was mind numbingly boring. Nobody wants that in a Championship Game other than the team successfully running it.

I'm just suggesting that the NFL doesn't want non-competitive boring plays in their game. Whether or not their attempts at eliminating them have been successful is irrelevant.

How did the Bills due with the play against the Chiefs, refresh my memory?

From what I recall not as successful. 78% on 34 attempts.

Here's probably one of the best sources on a discussion about the Tush Push its only 6 minutes in regular speed.

 

[BladeRunner]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

If they could then why don't they just do that? Seems to me like they can't.

 

[BladeRunner]

I did like the quote today of, "If some of these guys were around during the days of Unitas, they would have voted to outlaw the forward pass"

Or Mike Vrabel's quote of, "Lamar Jackson shouldn't be allowed to run the football, how about making that rule? That's also tough to defend."

Looking at this as an unbiased Bears fan (I don't think they even ran it when they had Fields) this feels like such a sour grapes thing to me. Or as the kids would say, "get good, losers"

My response to this would be, at what point did Lamar Jackson get assistance from other OFF players running down field? Or at what point did The QB get assistance throwing the ball downfield? Or the receiver catching it?

The point is is that both of those analogies are like comparing apples to oranges. In neither of those examples are offensive players assisting the person with the ball so the comparisons make no sense.

The whole point is that the person with the ball is getting assistance from other offensive players moving forward.

And then there's the whole question of why can't the defense do the same thing? So they have two choices: they allow it for everyone on offense and defense OR they allow it for no one on offense and defense.

At what point did the HB get assistance from from the FB running out of the I formation?

"get assistance"? Cmon now.

Hook and ladder? No no no no! Only hook, no assistance from the ladder!

/me sighs

Either you're being willfully obtuse or just being an Eagles homer. I'm not sure how many more times it can be explained to you so at this point I'm voting for "willfully obtuse".

 

[BladeRunner]

Blade's point is so nonsensical that he's obviously doing his usual troll-job, ya'll. Obviously they wouldn't be holding a vote to make a play illegal if it was already illegal.

Nonsensical? They're literally going to vote on it which tells everyone they KNOW it's an illegal play since the runner is being assisted forward by other offensive players.

 

[JAA]

I did like the quote today of, "If some of these guys were around during the days of Unitas, they would have voted to outlaw the forward pass"

Or Mike Vrabel's quote of, "Lamar Jackson shouldn't be allowed to run the football, how about making that rule? That's also tough to defend."

Looking at this as an unbiased Bears fan (I don't think they even ran it when they had Fields) this feels like such a sour grapes thing to me. Or as the kids would say, "get good, losers"

My response to this would be, at what point did Lamar Jackson get assistance from other OFF players running down field? Or at what point did The QB get assistance throwing the ball downfield? Or the receiver catching it?

The point is is that both of those analogies are like comparing apples to oranges. In neither of those examples are offensive players assisting the person with the ball so the comparisons make no sense.

The whole point is that the person with the ball is getting assistance from other offensive players moving forward.

And then there's the whole question of why can't the defense do the same thing? So they have two choices: they allow it for everyone on offense and defense OR they allow it for no one on offense and defense.

At what point did the HB get assistance from from the FB running out of the I formation?

"get assistance"? Cmon now.

Hook and ladder? No no no no! Only hook, no assistance from the ladder!

/me sighs

Either you're being willfully obtuse or just being an Eagles homer. I'm not sure how many more times it can be explained to you so at this point I'm voting for "willfully obtuse".

lol. I guess everyone else in this thread is wrong but you. Good luck with that!

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Blade's point is so nonsensical that he's obviously doing his usual troll-job, ya'll. Obviously they wouldn't be holding a vote to make a play illegal if it was already illegal.

Nonsensical? They're literally going to vote on it which tells everyone they KNOW it's an illegal play since the runner is being assisted forward by other offensive players.

It is legal for offensive players to assist the runner by pushing them.

If it was illegal they would just throw a flag, not vote on making something illegal that was already illegal.

They're not voting on the tush push play. They're voting to make assisting a player by pushing them illegal, which would have the effect of MAKING the tush push illegal. Because it is currently legal.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And then there's the whole question of why can't the defense do the same thing? So they have two choices: they allow it for everyone on offense and defense OR they allow it for no one on offense and defense.

Uh, they can. Defensive players can't use other defenders for leverage to jump etc. But it is absolutely legal for them to push other defensive players forward from behind (IE to counter against the tush push).

For both offense and defense, pushing a teammate from behind is legal.

 

[Grahamburn]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

How many sneaks did Brady attempt? He might have had a few a year? Google AI tells me 157 in his entire career. So, about 8 a year. It's also the frequency with which it's being used. The Eagles get inside of what, 3 yards on 3rd/4th down they pretty much exclusively run this play. Multiple times per game. 50 times per year. It's boring. The NFL doesn't like boring.

The Eagles created the play so they've had significantly more time to build up their perfection of it. But, other teams are trying it now as well. The Bills were trying it against the Chiefs on every short yardage down it was mind numbingly boring. Nobody wants that in a Championship Game other than the team successfully running it.

I'm just suggesting that the NFL doesn't want non-competitive boring plays in their game. Whether or not their attempts at eliminating them have been successful is irrelevant.

How did the Bills due with the play against the Chiefs, refresh my memory?

You asked. I answered. For the record I don't care if they ban it or not, but it's a boring play. You fellas are sensitive.

 

[Grahamburn]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

How many sneaks did Brady attempt? He might have had a few a year? Google AI tells me 157 in his entire career. So, about 8 a year. It's also the frequency with which it's being used. The Eagles get inside of what, 3 yards on 3rd/4th down they pretty much exclusively run this play. Multiple times per game. 50 times per year. It's boring. The NFL doesn't like boring.

The Eagles created the play so they've had significantly more time to build up their perfection of it. But, other teams are trying it now as well. The Bills were trying it against the Chiefs on every short yardage down it was mind numbingly boring. Nobody wants that in a Championship Game other than the team successfully running it.

I'm just suggesting that the NFL doesn't want non-competitive boring plays in their game. Whether or not their attempts at eliminating them have been successful is irrelevant.

So if a team was dominant enough to get 5 yards a clip running that ball at a 90% rate....they'd ban that?

I imagine not. A handoff is a traditional football play. A QB sneak with 3 guys pushing the QB up his *** to gain 2 yards and then 1 yard on back to back plays is not. And, sorry, it's boring. Like eye roll "god, that's lame" boring.

 

[BladeRunner]

I did like the quote today of, "If some of these guys were around during the days of Unitas, they would have voted to outlaw the forward pass"

Or Mike Vrabel's quote of, "Lamar Jackson shouldn't be allowed to run the football, how about making that rule? That's also tough to defend."

Looking at this as an unbiased Bears fan (I don't think they even ran it when they had Fields) this feels like such a sour grapes thing to me. Or as the kids would say, "get good, losers"

My response to this would be, at what point did Lamar Jackson get assistance from other OFF players running down field? Or at what point did The QB get assistance throwing the ball downfield? Or the receiver catching it?

The point is is that both of those analogies are like comparing apples to oranges. In neither of those examples are offensive players assisting the person with the ball so the comparisons make no sense.

The whole point is that the person with the ball is getting assistance from other offensive players moving forward.

And then there's the whole question of why can't the defense do the same thing? So they have two choices: they allow it for everyone on offense and defense OR they allow it for no one on offense and defense.

At what point did the HB get assistance from from the FB running out of the I formation?

"get assistance"? Cmon now.

Hook and ladder? No no no no! Only hook, no assistance from the ladder!

/me sighs

Either you're being willfully obtuse or just being an Eagles homer. I'm not sure how many more times it can be explained to you so at this point I'm voting for "willfully obtuse".

lol. I guess everyone else in this thread is wrong but you. Good luck with that!

If by "everyone" you mean only "Eagles Homers", then yes, "everyone".

I mean, the League is putting it up for a vote so that tells you that it is, indeed, a problematic play in that it is basically illegal. It went from 1 team (The Packers) in support of a ban, to 5 or 6 teams to now at least 16 teams that will support it. It's definitely gaining momentum. Even Sean McVay says, "It doesn't look like football to me".

The clock is ticking. The Eagles may have to find a legal way to get into the endzone which, of course, will spell trouble for them.

 

[ChicoCat]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

How many sneaks did Brady attempt? He might have had a few a year? Google AI tells me 157 in his entire career. So, about 8 a year. It's also the frequency with which it's being used. The Eagles get inside of what, 3 yards on 3rd/4th down they pretty much exclusively run this play. Multiple times per game. 50 times per year. It's boring. The NFL doesn't like boring.

The Eagles created the play so they've had significantly more time to build up their perfection of it. But, other teams are trying it now as well. The Bills were trying it against the Chiefs on every short yardage down it was mind numbingly boring. Nobody wants that in a Championship Game other than the team successfully running it.

I'm just suggesting that the NFL doesn't want non-competitive boring plays in their game. Whether or not their attempts at eliminating them have been successful is irrelevant.

So if a team was dominant enough to get 5 yards a clip running that ball at a 90% rate....they'd ban that?

I imagine not. A handoff is a traditional football play. A QB sneak with 3 guys pushing the QB up his *** to gain 2 yards and then 1 yard on back to back plays is not. And, sorry, it's boring. Like eye roll "god, that's lame" boring.

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

How many sneaks did Brady attempt? He might have had a few a year? Google AI tells me 157 in his entire career. So, about 8 a year. It's also the frequency with which it's being used. The Eagles get inside of what, 3 yards on 3rd/4th down they pretty much exclusively run this play. Multiple times per game. 50 times per year. It's boring. The NFL doesn't like boring.

The Eagles created the play so they've had significantly more time to build up their perfection of it. But, other teams are trying it now as well. The Bills were trying it against the Chiefs on every short yardage down it was mind numbingly boring. Nobody wants that in a Championship Game other than the team successfully running it.

I'm just suggesting that the NFL doesn't want non-competitive boring plays in their game. Whether or not their attempts at eliminating them have been successful is irrelevant.

So if a team was dominant enough to get 5 yards a clip running that ball at a 90% rate....they'd ban that?

I imagine not. A handoff is a traditional football play. A QB sneak with 3 guys pushing the QB up his *** to gain 2 yards and then 1 yard on back to back plays is not. And, sorry, it's boring. Like eye roll "god, that's lame" boring.

Are you for banning the traditional QB sneak? That's a boring play that has a 90% success rate.

 

[ChicoCat]

We used to argue at work about "Ole Torque Arm" a Henry Rowengartner pitcher who had such nasty stuff...noone could hit against him. Some guys said that was the name of the game....he should be allowed to play. Talent is as talent does. Others said that he shouldn't; that someone like him would just completely decimate the game and make a mockery of the competitive process. I argued that he shouldnt be able to play; that a Henry Rowengartner is a Wilt Chamberlain...a unicorn. Rules probably need to change because he is in the sport.

At a success rate on par with QB sneaks in the league; The Brotherly Shove isn't "Ole Torque Arm". It's not a unicorn. It might be a bit boring. It might be annoying to watch; to play against and defend. I'm sure its as demoralizing as hell on D. That beef on the lines takes pride in people moving, and to be abused like that at critical times has to suck. But that's the name of the game. Maybe the Eagles are just a little ahead of the meta curve in the NFL....they've figured out how to beat down the smaller, faster, quicker, more athletic defenders that started taking over the game; by using pure blunt force trauma. They got the QB that can do it. They have an (now two if Dillon is healthy) absolute load at RB...and they have the biggest O-Line in football.

You shouldn't be punished for breaking an existing meta and maybe starting a new one; boring or not.

 

[BladeRunner]

And then there's the whole question of why can't the defense do the same thing? So they have two choices: they allow it for everyone on offense and defense OR they allow it for no one on offense and defense.

Uh, they can. Defensive players can't use other defenders for leverage to jump etc. But it is absolutely legal for them to push other defensive players forward from behind (IE to counter against the tush push).

For both offense and defense, pushing a teammate from behind is legal.

No they cannot. You are factually incorrect.

NFL to consider prohibiting pushing and pulling, which would outlaw tush push

Owners tabled a vote on a tush push ban Tuesday.

www.nbcsports.com

Instead of banning one play, used mostly by one team, the Competition Committee now will begin researching whether to outlaw pushing and pulling on both sides of the ball. Currently, as McKay pointed out, the offense is allowed to push, something defensive players are prohibited from doing.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And then there's the whole question of why can't the defense do the same thing? So they have two choices: they allow it for everyone on offense and defense OR they allow it for no one on offense and defense.

Uh, they can. Defensive players can't use other defenders for leverage to jump etc. But it is absolutely legal for them to push other defensive players forward from behind (IE to counter against the tush push).

For both offense and defense, pushing a teammate from behind is legal.

No they cannot. You are factually incorrect.

NFL to consider prohibiting pushing and pulling, which would outlaw tush push

Owners tabled a vote on a tush push ban Tuesday.

www.nbcsports.com

Instead of banning one play, used mostly by one team, the Competition Committee now will begin researching whether to outlaw pushing and pulling on both sides of the ball. Currently, as McKay pointed out, the offense is allowed to push, something defensive players are prohibited from doing.

The writer doesn't present McKay's actual quote that he's referencing, and I think he's misinterpreting it.

The NFL bans defenders from pushing other defenders on special teams plays.

• When a team presents a punt, field-goal or try kick formation, defenders are prohibited from pushing teammates on the line of scrimmage.

There are no other rules in the rulebook that I or seemingly anyone else can find about defenders being prohibited from pushing teammates. If there was already a rule that defenders could not push other defenders, they wouldn't have had to add a rule that says defenders are not allowed to push other defenders on certain plays (as that would already be covered by the broader rule, if it existed).

If there is a rule in there somewhere that says it's illegal for defense (which I don't think there is), then I agree it should be made legal for them too.

But back to your main point. to try and prove this about the defense you are citing a rule saying pushing an offensive players is legal, contradicting your main argument where you've continually argued that the play is illegal.

 

[billmatic]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

I guess.

I think I'd like some consistency and intellectual honesty from the people (particularly the NFL personnel) who want it banned. I don't think I'm getting much of that.

It's a formality play. The NFL is very much trying to eliminate things considered "non-competitive." Same reason they keep messing with the kick off and why they moved the extra point back.

Plays with this kind of success rate are boring. Especially when it comes on downs/distances that are supposed to be crucial and exciting.

Your post doesn't make sense to me.

1. Tom Brady had an 89.6% conversion rate on QB sneaks in his career. In 2024, the tush push had a success rate of 81.3% and 83.3% in 2023. I didn't see anyone wanting to ban Tom Brady QB sneaks because it was a "formality" or "boring."

2. You also used examples like kick offs and extra points, but EVERY team did those and had similar success on those plays, so using them as an example here doesn't quite feel appropriate. As here, not every team does the tush push or can be successful doing it. It requires a specific type of personnel with a specific type of skills and a specific type of execution. Also, extra points are still being converted at a 95% clip, so...

That's where you're wrong. Bills fans wanted Tom Brady banned for years.

 

[Terpman22]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

Right now as I type this, The Eagles are either flat the favorite or tied w the Chiefs as best odds for Super Bowl next year. Do you think the odds change if this ban goes thru?

 

[sm8680]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

Right now as I type this, The Eagles are either flat the favorite or tied w the Chiefs as best odds for Super Bowl next year. Do you think the odds change if this ban goes thru?

In theory no because the QB sneak will still be very successful. You'll basically have the same play minus the push on the tush. But I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas changes the odds slightly. I know if I was an Eagle which obviously I'm not I'd want to go all out on teams especially the Packers. Seems like McVay disciples are against it. I could be wrong.

 

[Terpman22]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

Right now as I type this, The Eagles are either flat the favorite or tied w the Chiefs as best odds for Super Bowl next year. Do you think the odds change if this ban goes thru?

In theory no because the QB sneak will still be very successful. You'll basically have the same play minus the push on the tush. But I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas changes the odds slightly. I know if I was an Eagle which obviously I'm not I'd want to go all out on teams especially the Packers. Seems like McVay disciples are against it. I could be wrong.

Exactly my point. I’m more about the disingenuous arguments that people are hiding behind bc the precedent this sets, to me, is WAY biggger than if the play gets banned.

I also think the Eagles will 100% invent a new legal way using whatever the new language is, to still take advantage

Oh a player can’t line up directly behind the QB?
Ok so here is One tight end offset with JORDAN MAILATA coming around in motion at the same time the ball is snapped, and pushes Jalen Hurts into the end zone!

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Tabling this isn't good for the Eagles.

It's not like the Eagles couldn't just run a regular QB sneak and still be successful.

Totally

 

[Alex P Keaton]

16 teams support the proposal and the commissioner is openly lobbying for the owners to draft a better proposal that will pass. Ideally a proposal that bans assisting any runner via pushing or pulling. This is happening in May.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

This is happening in May.

No question. I'm more than a little curious and highly interested in what that proposal will look like. Words and all.

Oddly though, only half the league (by my math) supports making changes to the rules.

Either way, good stuff!

 

[Alex P Keaton]

This is happening in May.

No question. I'm more than a little curious and highly interested in what that proposal will look like. Words and all.

Oddly though, only half the league (by my math) supports making changes to the rules.

Either way, good stuff!

Only half the league supports the idiotically worded proposal the Packers put forward.

 

[Terpman22]

This is happening in May.

No question. I'm more than a little curious and highly interested in what that proposal will look like. Words and all.

Oddly though, only half the league (by my math) supports making changes to the rules.

Either way, good stuff!

Only half the league supports the idiotically worded proposal the Packers put forward.

youd think since this was very obviously via Goodell as proxy, they would have had it worded cleanly.

 

[trader jake]

This is happening in May.

No question. I'm more than a little curious and highly interested in what that proposal will look like. Words and all.

Oddly though, only half the league (by my math) supports making changes to the rules.

Either way, good stuff!

Only half the league supports the idiotically worded proposal the Packers put forward.

youd think since this was very obviously via Goodell as proxy, they would have had it worded cleanly.

They're working on it.

PFT feels the league lawyers are about to push the owner's tushes on this one. Maybe the pro-Tush Push team lawyers will quit whining and just find a way to stop it.

Lawyers will likely nudge the league to dump the tush push

Legitimate or not, fears of "catastrophic injury" will kill the play.

www.nbcsports.com