Sean
@seanf5.bsky.social
He/him unless I’m talking about the Mariners or Seahawks, then it’s ’we’
Some call me Rufus
Some call me Rufus
She’s raising an Orc army
January 20, 2026 at 2:53 AM
She’s raising an Orc army
I was way too hot or cold at first and 6 months later was fine.
January 19, 2026 at 5:37 AM
I was way too hot or cold at first and 6 months later was fine.
The defining aspect is if you were living there when the seasons changed. Going from July to Jan in Chicago has you better prepared for a 10 degree game than the same person that lived Jul-Jan in LA and visits.
I moved back and forth from Seattle to Australia @ Thailand a few times.
I moved back and forth from Seattle to Australia @ Thailand a few times.
January 19, 2026 at 5:36 AM
The defining aspect is if you were living there when the seasons changed. Going from July to Jan in Chicago has you better prepared for a 10 degree game than the same person that lived Jul-Jan in LA and visits.
I moved back and forth from Seattle to Australia @ Thailand a few times.
I moved back and forth from Seattle to Australia @ Thailand a few times.
IMO, and from my experience this is wrong.
It doesn’t matter if you remember being cold before, it matters what your body is used to.
If you live in an area where it’s always warm, then you freeze when you visit for a weekend.
Same thing when cold weather teams visit Miami in winter.
It doesn’t matter if you remember being cold before, it matters what your body is used to.
If you live in an area where it’s always warm, then you freeze when you visit for a weekend.
Same thing when cold weather teams visit Miami in winter.
January 19, 2026 at 5:33 AM
IMO, and from my experience this is wrong.
It doesn’t matter if you remember being cold before, it matters what your body is used to.
If you live in an area where it’s always warm, then you freeze when you visit for a weekend.
Same thing when cold weather teams visit Miami in winter.
It doesn’t matter if you remember being cold before, it matters what your body is used to.
If you live in an area where it’s always warm, then you freeze when you visit for a weekend.
Same thing when cold weather teams visit Miami in winter.
BTW- I don’t necessarily believe in it. And I haven’t looked at how many long term coaches never got theirs.
Like Levy or Schottenheimer
Like Levy or Schottenheimer
January 19, 2026 at 2:45 AM
BTW- I don’t necessarily believe in it. And I haven’t looked at how many long term coaches never got theirs.
Like Levy or Schottenheimer
Like Levy or Schottenheimer
Since 1990 there have been 25 separate coaches that have won a Super Bowl (by my count). 23 did it within 5 years for that team.
Reid and Cowher are the exceptions.
Reid and Cowher are the exceptions.
January 19, 2026 at 2:41 AM
Since 1990 there have been 25 separate coaches that have won a Super Bowl (by my count). 23 did it within 5 years for that team.
Reid and Cowher are the exceptions.
Reid and Cowher are the exceptions.
The stat has nothing to do with QBs. It’s just coaches.
If they don’t win a SB within 5 years for a team they aren’t going to.
And yes, most get fired within 5 years. But holding onto a guy that is just good hardly ever works out.
If they don’t win a SB within 5 years for a team they aren’t going to.
And yes, most get fired within 5 years. But holding onto a guy that is just good hardly ever works out.
January 19, 2026 at 1:08 AM
The stat has nothing to do with QBs. It’s just coaches.
If they don’t win a SB within 5 years for a team they aren’t going to.
And yes, most get fired within 5 years. But holding onto a guy that is just good hardly ever works out.
If they don’t win a SB within 5 years for a team they aren’t going to.
And yes, most get fired within 5 years. But holding onto a guy that is just good hardly ever works out.
Isn’t there some lopsided stat that if a HC doesn’t win a Super Bowl within 5 years it isn’t happening?
Like 95% of Super Bowls are won by coaches that are in their first 5 years or won within 5 years and are on to multiples?
Like 95% of Super Bowls are won by coaches that are in their first 5 years or won within 5 years and are on to multiples?
January 19, 2026 at 12:38 AM
Isn’t there some lopsided stat that if a HC doesn’t win a Super Bowl within 5 years it isn’t happening?
Like 95% of Super Bowls are won by coaches that are in their first 5 years or won within 5 years and are on to multiples?
Like 95% of Super Bowls are won by coaches that are in their first 5 years or won within 5 years and are on to multiples?
His older sister, Onefer said it’s true.
January 18, 2026 at 11:32 PM
His older sister, Onefer said it’s true.
The problem is going to be building an offensive line, keeping and paying the defense and paying Stroud his extension.
January 18, 2026 at 11:11 PM
The problem is going to be building an offensive line, keeping and paying the defense and paying Stroud his extension.
This is how football was played in the 80’s. Just a reckless disregard for negative plays.
January 18, 2026 at 10:23 PM
This is how football was played in the 80’s. Just a reckless disregard for negative plays.
Okay, that’s enough. You’ll have to be wrong on your own from now on.
January 18, 2026 at 11:57 AM
Okay, that’s enough. You’ll have to be wrong on your own from now on.
You keep saying that but you know it’s not true, right.
In both the instances of the ref explanations they point out that a player going to the ground has to maintain control the entire time. Everyone knows this.
The process does not magically stop at the point you attached
In both the instances of the ref explanations they point out that a player going to the ground has to maintain control the entire time. Everyone knows this.
The process does not magically stop at the point you attached
January 18, 2026 at 11:12 AM
You keep saying that but you know it’s not true, right.
In both the instances of the ref explanations they point out that a player going to the ground has to maintain control the entire time. Everyone knows this.
The process does not magically stop at the point you attached
In both the instances of the ref explanations they point out that a player going to the ground has to maintain control the entire time. Everyone knows this.
The process does not magically stop at the point you attached
So in yesterday’s instance they ruled he lost possession when he hit the ground. Therefore no catch.
In the previous instance they ruled he did not lose possession when he went to the ground. Therefore catch.
I think I cracked the code.
In the previous instance they ruled he did not lose possession when he went to the ground. Therefore catch.
I think I cracked the code.
January 18, 2026 at 10:37 AM
So in yesterday’s instance they ruled he lost possession when he hit the ground. Therefore no catch.
In the previous instance they ruled he did not lose possession when he went to the ground. Therefore catch.
I think I cracked the code.
In the previous instance they ruled he did not lose possession when he went to the ground. Therefore catch.
I think I cracked the code.
That’s the important part and a great learning opportunity for you.
January 18, 2026 at 10:10 AM
That’s the important part and a great learning opportunity for you.
I don’t understand why this is hard for you.
If you would like to understand the game better, you should listen to the experts when they explain the rules to you.
If you would like to understand the game better, you should listen to the experts when they explain the rules to you.
January 18, 2026 at 10:09 AM
I don’t understand why this is hard for you.
If you would like to understand the game better, you should listen to the experts when they explain the rules to you.
If you would like to understand the game better, you should listen to the experts when they explain the rules to you.
We don’t need to read about plays that are similar, but different.
They explained these exact circumstances.
They explained these exact circumstances.
January 18, 2026 at 10:01 AM
We don’t need to read about plays that are similar, but different.
They explained these exact circumstances.
They explained these exact circumstances.
Here is the official explaining it.
January 18, 2026 at 9:53 AM
Here is the official explaining it.
Because the receiver is going to the ground the catch is not completed until he has completed the process.
It is never a catch until the whole process is completed.
The first player to complete *all* the components to make it a catch was the defender.
It is never a catch until the whole process is completed.
The first player to complete *all* the components to make it a catch was the defender.
January 18, 2026 at 9:51 AM
Because the receiver is going to the ground the catch is not completed until he has completed the process.
It is never a catch until the whole process is completed.
The first player to complete *all* the components to make it a catch was the defender.
It is never a catch until the whole process is completed.
The first player to complete *all* the components to make it a catch was the defender.
Here’s the rule as explained by the official for this specific circumstance:
January 18, 2026 at 9:47 AM
Here’s the rule as explained by the official for this specific circumstance:
They did review it. All turnovers get an automatic review.
The refs statement from postgame was:
The WR never had possession because he did not survive going to the ground.
The ball never hit the ground.
The first player to have possession was the DB and he was down by contact.
The refs statement from postgame was:
The WR never had possession because he did not survive going to the ground.
The ball never hit the ground.
The first player to have possession was the DB and he was down by contact.
January 18, 2026 at 9:05 AM
They did review it. All turnovers get an automatic review.
The refs statement from postgame was:
The WR never had possession because he did not survive going to the ground.
The ball never hit the ground.
The first player to have possession was the DB and he was down by contact.
The refs statement from postgame was:
The WR never had possession because he did not survive going to the ground.
The ball never hit the ground.
The first player to have possession was the DB and he was down by contact.
That’s not what the criteria is. He has to survive the ground and maintain possession. He didn’t.
But the ball never hit the ground, therefore the defender was the first player to possess the ball.
There is a media interview where the ref explains it if you need verification.
But the ball never hit the ground, therefore the defender was the first player to possess the ball.
There is a media interview where the ref explains it if you need verification.
January 18, 2026 at 5:07 AM
That’s not what the criteria is. He has to survive the ground and maintain possession. He didn’t.
But the ball never hit the ground, therefore the defender was the first player to possess the ball.
There is a media interview where the ref explains it if you need verification.
But the ball never hit the ground, therefore the defender was the first player to possess the ball.
There is a media interview where the ref explains it if you need verification.
As I’ve gotten older I think that these are separate skills:
1. Getting a bad or mediocre team to outperform it’s status by a couple of wins
2. Winning big games against good teams when you are a good team.
I have no opinion on the hire, I just don’t think those are necessarily correlated.
1. Getting a bad or mediocre team to outperform it’s status by a couple of wins
2. Winning big games against good teams when you are a good team.
I have no opinion on the hire, I just don’t think those are necessarily correlated.
January 18, 2026 at 4:16 AM
As I’ve gotten older I think that these are separate skills:
1. Getting a bad or mediocre team to outperform it’s status by a couple of wins
2. Winning big games against good teams when you are a good team.
I have no opinion on the hire, I just don’t think those are necessarily correlated.
1. Getting a bad or mediocre team to outperform it’s status by a couple of wins
2. Winning big games against good teams when you are a good team.
I have no opinion on the hire, I just don’t think those are necessarily correlated.
He’s a good QB when it’s a fair fight. He’s a very good QB when his players are better.
He’s not good when the other team is better.
He’s not good when the other team is better.
January 18, 2026 at 3:42 AM
He’s a good QB when it’s a fair fight. He’s a very good QB when his players are better.
He’s not good when the other team is better.
He’s not good when the other team is better.