If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bleacher Report)   Carolina, Bags Montana, 24 is Mike, Omaha, Hut. Now do you understand the mind of Peyton Manning?   (bleacherreport.com) divider line 102
    More: Cool, Peyton Manning, scrimmage line, Charles Woodson, Knowshon Moreno, Denver Broncos, Eric Decker, Demaryius Thomas, Dont'a Hightower  
•       •       •

1809 clicks; posted to Sports » on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:25 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-29 03:31:14 PM
Said it before, say it again.  He's gonna carve Seattle up like christmas turkey.
 
2014-01-29 04:09:35 PM
Well, 24 is Mike means that #24 is the Middle Linebacker, that's for the offensive line, so they know how to block.
 
2014-01-29 04:21:15 PM
www.wwe.com

"Makes perfect sense to me."
 
2014-01-29 04:29:54 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Said it before, say it again.  He's gonna carve Seattle up like christmas turkey.


So you think he will slice through Seattle's defense like a roller knife through a Papa John's pizza?

www.pizzatools.com
 
2014-01-29 04:31:29 PM
Haven't heard "Louisville Soul Train" lately.
 
2014-01-29 04:32:36 PM
Actually, Baggs is in Wyoming
 
2014-01-29 04:39:07 PM
Actual football insight? On my Fark? Apparently it's more likely than I thought.

/once a year or so
//interesting read
 
2014-01-29 04:50:02 PM

mitchcumstein1: Well, 24 is Mike means that #24 is the Middle Linebacker, that's for the offensive line, so they know how to block.


My favorite was during the Championship game he kept saying, "MIKE IS MIKE".
 
2014-01-29 04:50:08 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-29 04:57:48 PM
Using a clear recognizable word to let the offense know the ball is ready to be snapped isnt unusual. And Omaha is a very hard word to mess up in your head and ears as it sounds like nothing else. Pretty fundamental if you ask me.
 
2014-01-29 04:59:03 PM
Except when it doesn't
 
2014-01-29 05:04:44 PM

Semper IvXx: Actual football insight? On my Fark? Apparently it's more likely than I thought.

/once a year or so
//interesting read


Yeah, i really liked it.... I was rather impressed myself.

Sapper_Topo: Using a clear recognizable word to let the offense know the ball is ready to be snapped isnt unusual. And Omaha is a very hard word to mess up in your head and ears as it sounds like nothing else. Pretty fundamental if you ask me.


Yeah, but the point is that if they know he's going to call for the ball immediately after 'Omaha'(Omaha! Hut!), then he might as well just tell the defense the snap is coming. I think it's HOW he says it, maybe, he did a weird inflection on the word and then said 'hut' every time immediately afterwards last time I watched.

Either way, it was a good article, and not only because it explained that all good QBs make calls at the line... half of the people out there act like Manning invented this, he's just really, REALLY good at it.
 
2014-01-29 05:12:40 PM
Holy shiat. An interesting and insightful article from Bleacher Report? As soon as I clicked I was pissed at myself for clicking a BR link, but was pleasantly surprised.
 
2014-01-29 05:19:13 PM

pregerstheHobo: Holy shiat. An interesting and insightful article from Bleacher Report? As soon as I clicked I was pissed at myself for clicking a BR link, but was pleasantly surprised.


/subby takes a bow.
//slashies
///Omaha
 
2014-01-29 05:32:31 PM
Mike is a linebacker position, subby. 24 would be a DB, not a linebacker.
 
2014-01-29 05:37:01 PM

abhorrent1: Mike is a linebacker position, subby. 24 would be a DB, not a linebacker.



I see somebody didn't read the article....
 
2014-01-29 05:48:54 PM
I believe this was taken at DIA yesterday:

img.fark.net

GO BRONCOS!
 
2014-01-29 06:02:10 PM
Darth Brony is gonna pick apart the secondary like a kid pulling the legs off a grasshopper.
 
2014-01-29 06:10:13 PM

abhorrent1: Mike is a linebacker position, subby. 24 would be a DB, not a linebacker.


Unless you're playing Seattle, and then 24 is Marshawn Lynch.  I'm not saying he can't play linebacker, just that he usually doesn't. Or DB.
 
2014-01-29 06:19:20 PM

Mikey1969: Semper IvXx: Actual football insight? On my Fark? Apparently it's more likely than I thought.

/once a year or so
//interesting read

Yeah, i really liked it.... I was rather impressed myself.

Sapper_Topo: Using a clear recognizable word to let the offense know the ball is ready to be snapped isnt unusual. And Omaha is a very hard word to mess up in your head and ears as it sounds like nothing else. Pretty fundamental if you ask me.

Yeah, but the point is that if they know he's going to call for the ball immediately after 'Omaha'(Omaha! Hut!), then he might as well just tell the defense the snap is coming. I think it's HOW he says it, maybe, he did a weird inflection on the word and then said 'hut' every time immediately afterwards last time I watched.

Either way, it was a good article, and not only because it explained that all good QBs make calls at the line... half of the people out there act like Manning invented this, he's just really, REALLY good at it.


the secret sauce to Peyton Manning is consistency in execution, ya know... boring stuff like post-snap reads, proper throwing mechanics, footwork, tons of film study of defenses, etc.

all the stuff that gets people's attention are mostly gimmicks that come and go every week
 
2014-01-29 06:20:23 PM

abhorrent1: Mike is a linebacker position, subby. 24 would be a DB, not a linebacker.


"The Mike may actually be a safety, a cornerback or even a defensive lineman."
 
2014-01-29 06:24:32 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: abhorrent1: Mike is a linebacker position, subby. 24 would be a DB, not a linebacker.

"The Mike may actually be a safety, a cornerback or even a defensive lineman."


Mike is the man blitzing, so yeah anybody can be a "Mike"
 
2014-01-29 06:30:49 PM

AdamK: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: abhorrent1: Mike is a linebacker position, subby. 24 would be a DB, not a linebacker.

"The Mike may actually be a safety, a cornerback or even a defensive lineman."

Mike is the man blitzing, so yeah anybody can be a "Mike"


Also, subby pulled the "24 is Mike" example straight from TFA.
 
2014-01-29 06:46:10 PM
Why don't more defenses audible or silently audible out of plays when it's obvious that they've been figured out? In the example in the article, why didn't Woodson drop into coverage on Thomas like he was showing and have someone else blitz once Manning said "24 is Mike"?

I understand they might not have time to change formations, but they could have a plan ahead of time that when Manning diagnoses a disguised blitz that they should do something else. Like an option blitz or something.
 
2014-01-29 06:56:24 PM

jcb274: Why don't more defenses audible or silently audible out of plays when it's obvious that they've been figured out? In the example in the article, why didn't Woodson drop into coverage on Thomas like he was showing and have someone else blitz once Manning said "24 is Mike"?

I understand they might not have time to change formations, but they could have a plan ahead of time that when Manning diagnoses a disguised blitz that they should do something else. Like an option blitz or something.


Ray Lewis used to do this.

Colts/Ravens was football chess.
 
2014-01-29 06:56:42 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Said it before, say it again.  He's gonna carve Seattle up like christmas turkey.


Maybe. I doubt it very much, but it is certainly possible.
 
2014-01-29 06:56:46 PM
Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.
 
2014-01-29 06:56:53 PM

jcb274: Why don't more defenses audible or silently audible out of plays when it's obvious that they've been figured out? In the example in the article, why didn't Woodson drop into coverage on Thomas like he was showing and have someone else blitz once Manning said "24 is Mike"?

I understand they might not have time to change formations, but they could have a plan ahead of time that when Manning diagnoses a disguised blitz that they should do something else. Like an option blitz or something.


Defense is mostly reaction.  Offense has the advantage here.  How do you know if what Pey is saying is legit or just noise?  You don't. Games within games.  Chess, not checkers.
 
2014-01-29 06:58:57 PM

xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.


Then you disqualified yourself right away.  '24 is Mike' was straight from TFA.

Thanks for playing.
 
2014-01-29 07:02:35 PM

xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.


You could just read the thread.
 
2014-01-29 07:05:13 PM

Mikey1969: Yeah, but the point is that if they know he's going to call for the ball immediately after 'Omaha'(Omaha! Hut!), then he might as well just tell the defense the snap is coming. I think it's HOW he says it, maybe, he did a weird inflection on the word and then said 'hut' every time immediately afterwards last time I watched.


He probably just tells the offense in the huddle. "After Omaha on 2" or "No Omaha on 2". That way he can call audibles, change things up, throw out anything he wants, and the center always knows what his cue is. So the snap mechanics don't change but everything else might.
 
2014-01-29 07:07:53 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.

Then you disqualified yourself right away.  '24 is Mike' was straight from TFA.

Thanks for playing.



That would mean, then, by necessity, that the article itself is bullshiat. It is impossible, a waste of time and not worth even reading the headline of, much less spending any energy considering.

Or, you could see the 'BleacherReport' tag and know this all instantly and pass it on by. Up to you.
 
2014-01-29 07:15:34 PM

xaks: Lt. Cheese Weasel: xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.

Then you disqualified yourself right away.  '24 is Mike' was straight from TFA.

Thanks for playing.


That would mean, then, by necessity, that the article itself is bullshiat. It is impossible, a waste of time and not worth even reading the headline of, much less spending any energy considering.

Or, you could see the 'BleacherReport' tag and know this all instantly and pass it on by. Up to you.


Or...you're wrong.
 
2014-01-29 07:27:39 PM

jcb274: Why don't more defenses audible or silently audible out of plays when it's obvious that they've been figured out? In the example in the article, why didn't Woodson drop into coverage on Thomas like he was showing and have someone else blitz once Manning said "24 is Mike"?

I understand they might not have time to change formations, but they could have a plan ahead of time that when Manning diagnoses a disguised blitz that they should do something else. Like an option blitz or something.


Audible to what exactly?  The pic shows 8 seconds, and the ball is snapped at 3 seconds.

Say it took Peyton two to three seconds to do his little dance and call that audible.

That gives the defense another second or two to make the adjustment of Woodson dropping into coverage, having someone else blitz, and picking up the right routes?

Not impossible, but extremely unlikely.
 
2014-01-29 07:39:17 PM

Shame Us: xaks: Lt. Cheese Weasel: xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.

Then you disqualified yourself right away.  '24 is Mike' was straight from TFA.

Thanks for playing.


That would mean, then, by necessity, that the article itself is bullshiat. It is impossible, a waste of time and not worth even reading the headline of, much less spending any energy considering.

Or, you could see the 'BleacherReport' tag and know this all instantly and pass it on by. Up to you.

Or...you're wrong.


Here, since you're obviously 'a little slow' or just plain ignorant of how these things work....I'll provide you the links to show you the actual data. Apparently since Google is too complicated as well, I should not be surprised that such nuances of regulations and rules are way too heady.

Remember, this is the NFL we're talking about. They fine players 5000 dollars IF THEIR SOCKS ARE THE WRONG COLOR. This is a league by lawyers, for lawyers, and it makes $10 Billion a year doing it. Try and keep up.

You can go to any number of sites and get the same re-copypasted data, but here's an english breakdown of it:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/060525

Here's the relevant part for you: (copypaste of my own)

But the NFL's system, which is more stringent than the one used by the NCAA and high schools, takes things a few steps further. Here's how the league breaks it down:

•  Quarterbacks, punters, and kickers: 1-19
•  Running backs: 20-49
•  Wide receivers: 10-19 and 80-89
•  Tight ends: 10-19 and 80-89 (or 40-49 if those ranges are taken)
•  Centers: 50-59 (or 60-79 if that range is taken)
•  Offensive linemen: 60-79
•  Defensive linemen: 60-79 and 90-99
•  Linebackers: 50-59 and 90-99
•  Defensive backs: 20-49

This system has been in effect since 1973, with only one change: Prior to 2004, wide receivers and tight ends were restricted to 80-89. There were occasional exceptions, like Keyshawn Johnson and Kelley Campbell....

(*end copypaste, you can read the article for the more detailed info if you like)

Thus, as I stated earlier, 24 cannot be the mike as the mike designation is for middle linebackers. By rule, middle linebackers on the current NFL would have to be either #50-59 or 90-99. 24 is either a running back or a DB.

And, regardless of offense or defense, you're still incorrect. Nice try. You get a ribbon for participation.
 
2014-01-29 07:39:19 PM

xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.


The "mike" is usually referred to ANY blitzing player by the offence.

I'll give you that "mike" used to stand for middle linebacker, just like Jack, Will and Sam are the names of other linebacker positions.

What "mike" is to the offence is completely different.  Now it means the guy that is blitzing that needs to be accounted for by the HB/FB or even the Centre.

They could be running plays towards the Mike (outside linebacker blitzes, which may create a huge hole for a RB to go through, or in the TFA instance, a short out route due to the space created by Woodson blitzing) or away from the Mike (reverses and draws come to mind here) depending on the situation of the protection.

If "mike" doesn't blitz, that means the HB/FB is free to leak out as a relief valve for the QB.

Know your football, you'll be better off on Sunday when you are watching the game with people who actually know the sport.  You'll sound smart too!  And even possibly make new friends!
 
2014-01-29 07:41:50 PM

xaks: Shame Us: xaks: Lt. Cheese Weasel: xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.

Then you disqualified yourself right away.  '24 is Mike' was straight from TFA.

Thanks for playing.


That would mean, then, by necessity, that the article itself is bullshiat. It is impossible, a waste of time and not worth even reading the headline of, much less spending any energy considering.

Or, you could see the 'BleacherReport' tag and know this all instantly and pass it on by. Up to you.

Or...you're wrong.

Here, since you're obviously 'a little slow' or just plain ignorant of how these things work....I'll provide you the links to show you the actual data. Apparently since Google is too complicated as well, I should not be surprised that such nuances of regulations and rules are way too heady.

Remember, this is the NFL we're talking about. They fine players 5000 dollars IF THEIR SOCKS ARE THE WRONG COLOR. This is a league by lawyers, for lawyers, and it makes $10 Billion a year doing it. Try and keep up.

You can go to any number of sites and get the same re-copypasted data, but here's an english breakdown of it:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/060525

Here's the relevant part for you: (copypaste of my own)

But the NFL's system, which is more stringent than the one used by the NCAA and high schools, takes things a few steps further. Here's how the league breaks it down:

•  Quarterbacks, punters, and kickers: 1-19
•  Running backs: 20-49
•  Wide receivers: 10-19 and 80-89
•  Tight ends: 10-19 and 80-89 (or 40-49 if those ranges are taken)
•  Centers: 50-59 (or 60-79 if that range is taken)
•  Offensive linemen: 60-79
•  Defensive linemen: 60-79 and 90-99
•  Linebackers: 50-59 and 90-99
•  Defensive backs: 20-49

This system has been in effect ...


Your ridiculous inability to read borders on sad. As it is, it's laughable.
 
2014-01-29 07:43:37 PM

LoR75: xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.

The "mike" is usually referred to ANY blitzing player by the offence.

I'll give you that "mike" used to stand for middle linebacker, just like Jack, Will and Sam are the names of other linebacker positions.

What "mike" is to the offence is completely different.  Now it means the guy that is blitzing that needs to be accounted for by the HB/FB or even the Centre.

They could be running plays towards the Mike (outside linebacker blitzes, which may create a huge hole for a RB to go through, or in the TFA instance, a short out route due to the space created by Woodson blitzing) or away from the Mike (reverses and draws come to mind here) depending on the situation of the protection.

If "mike" doesn't blitz, that means the HB/FB is free to leak out as a relief valve for the QB.

Know your football, you'll be better off on Sunday when you are watching the game with people who actually know the sport.  You'll sound smart too!  And even possibly make new friends!


Not sure what football you're watching there hoss. I've never once heard mike be applied to ANY position outside of the LB corps. I've heard it applied 99% of the time to the middle LB, and a couple of noteworthy occasions to an obviously blitzing outside 'backer, but never once to a player NOT a linebacker.

Not saying it couldn't be. Just saying I've never heard or seen it.
 
2014-01-29 07:45:57 PM

Shame Us: Your ridiculous inability to read borders on sad. As it is, it's laughable.


You are, of course, free to have your own opinion. More power to you.

Of course, you're still demonstrably incorrect, but that's OK. See the nice man over by the picnic table for your award.
 
2014-01-29 07:46:14 PM

xaks: • Defensive backs: 20-49


Bingo.  You aren't very good at this, are you?
 
2014-01-29 07:47:22 PM

Shame Us: Your ridiculous inability to read borders on sad. As it is, it's laughable.


I concur.

Other dude - MIKE IS THE DUDE MANNING THINKS IS GOING TO BLITZ - position notwithstanding.  That's it. There's really no other research needed but suffice to say he need not have a number reserved for linebackers.
 
2014-01-29 07:48:01 PM

xaks: Shame Us: Your ridiculous inability to read borders on sad. As it is, it's laughable.

You are, of course, free to have your own opinion. More power to you.

Of course, you're still demonstrably incorrect, but that's OK. See the nice man over by the picnic table for your award.


24 is the mike does not mean that 24 is the MLB. Get your shiat straight and then come back.
 
2014-01-29 07:48:08 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: xaks: • Defensive backs: 20-49

Bingo.  You aren't very good at this, are you?


In Bronco lingo, Mike is the most likely 'blitzer'.  Maybe next time before you vomit all over my premium thread, you can read the farkING ARTICLE????? Just a suggestion.
 
2014-01-29 07:50:53 PM
This thread got strange.
 
2014-01-29 07:51:08 PM

xaks: LoR75: xaks: Would now be a good time to point out that 24 is not a linebacker allowed number, and thus could not possibly be the mike?

No, I didn't read the article, this is Fark. But that does not negate the point that it is factually inaccurate and impossible.

The "mike" is usually referred to ANY blitzing player by the offence.

I'll give you that "mike" used to stand for middle linebacker, just like Jack, Will and Sam are the names of other linebacker positions.

What "mike" is to the offence is completely different.  Now it means the guy that is blitzing that needs to be accounted for by the HB/FB or even the Centre.

They could be running plays towards the Mike (outside linebacker blitzes, which may create a huge hole for a RB to go through, or in the TFA instance, a short out route due to the space created by Woodson blitzing) or away from the Mike (reverses and draws come to mind here) depending on the situation of the protection.

If "mike" doesn't blitz, that means the HB/FB is free to leak out as a relief valve for the QB.

Know your football, you'll be better off on Sunday when you are watching the game with people who actually know the sport.  You'll sound smart too!  And even possibly make new friends!

Not sure what football you're watching there hoss. I've never once heard mike be applied to ANY position outside of the LB corps. I've heard it applied 99% of the time to the middle LB, and a couple of noteworthy occasions to an obviously blitzing outside 'backer, but never once to a player NOT a linebacker.

Not saying it couldn't be. Just saying I've never heard or seen it.


Have you alerted Tom Brady and Peyton Manning as to their utter incorrectness?
 
2014-01-29 07:51:50 PM

JerseyTim: This thread got strange.


only one reason why: xaks
 
2014-01-29 07:52:43 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: xaks: • Defensive backs: 20-49

Bingo.  You aren't very good at this, are you?


You realize that linebackers are not considered defensive backs, right? That's safeties and corners and such. Linebackers are a separate position group.
 
2014-01-29 07:53:58 PM
This is the part where xaks says he was just trolling all along and boy, we should see the looks on our faces.
 
2014-01-29 07:54:37 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lt. Cheese Weasel: xaks: • Defensive backs: 20-49

Bingo.  You aren't very good at this, are you?

In Bronco lingo, Mike is the most likely 'blitzer'.  Maybe next time before you vomit all over my premium thread, you can read the farkING ARTICLE????? Just a suggestion.


Your 'premium thread'? For a Bleacher Report 'article'?

Wow, that's rich.
 
2014-01-29 07:55:48 PM

xaks: Lt. Cheese Weasel: xaks: • Defensive backs: 20-49

Bingo.  You aren't very good at this, are you?

You realize that linebackers are not considered defensive backs, right? That's safeties and corners and such. Linebackers are a separate position group.

img.fark.net
You are one sad little man. Read the article, and understand that 'Mike' is not your lingo, it's THEIRS. And it doesn't mean what you think it means.  Imagine a world like that....
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report