Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Brian Burns not credited with a sack?

Eazy-E

By Eazy-E,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
Posted

So unless I am mistaken, Burns did not get credit for the sack on the Mahomes read option he destroyed because there was no apparent attempt at a pass. 

I don't really understand the rules there and how you determine if a play is designed to be a run or a pass if the QB is taken down as fast as Mahomes was. I know there was quite a number of times Cam got killed running option plays and the opposing team was credited with a sack.

If you botch a snap and fall on the ball in the backfield is that not a sack?

Anyone care to explain/elaborate? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proudiddy Grand Master

Proudiddy

Posted
Posted

I feel so pissed off for Burns.  Glad you checked bc I meant to look earlier when it had crossed my mind and forgot...  but yeah, upset for him bc that's like the 3rd off the top of my head that he has been screwed out of bc of the scorekeepers/officials - one of the Herbert strip sacks against the chargers wasn't counted and it was an obvious strip sack, the sack against ATL that was negated by a meaningless def holding penalty (and Burns was injured on the play), and then that play yesterday.  I really wish we had/quickly develop his bookend, bc the Chiefs literally kept the RB on his side every play to either chip or run a screen behind him to slow him down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proudiddy Grand Master

Proudiddy

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SetfreexX said:

A Read Option is a run play for either the QB or HB, it would be classified as a TFL, not a sack. 

My guess is it was more likely an RPO than a read option run play if Mahomes was keeping it.  IIRC, the commentators even said it was an RPO, so Burns not getting credit was likely just due to interpretation by the scorekeepers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rags Mentor

Rags

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Proudiddy said:

My guess is it was more likely an RPO than a read option run play if Mahomes was keeping it.  IIRC, the commentators even said it was an RPO, so Burns not getting credit was likely just due to interpretation by the scorekeepers.

Burns blew it up so fast its hard to say.

God bless him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Basbear Grand Master

Basbear

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

He wasn't old enough to get that call.

I still believe that was the turning point in Cams career, not brainlet Rivera/Shula. Though he should have said things public, rather than "send it league office". Refs didnt protect him like other QBs form that comment on, beyond dumb reasoning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...