Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

New England (-3) at Pittsburgh (12-17-17)


oldunclemark

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, poaponies said:

I'm just hoping the 49niner score about 50 by half so they will switch the game 

 

Isn't that game going to bare minimum required audiences though? If you're in Tennessee or northern California you're probably riding that game out.

 

Although I do need the 49ers to win so the Titans can lose and help the Bills out for a playoff spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PeterBowman said:

In Pittsburgh no less....always seems in big games the refs swallow their whistles against NE.

Refs prolly don’t know what to do. They love both teams. A real tragedy for these guys. Let’s all take a moment and reflect on how tough their job is sometimes. Not all heroes wear capes guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How was that not offensive PI?  The way I understand the rule is that the receiver and defender have an equal right to the ball.  If a defender held down a receiver's arm so that he couldn't make a play on the ball, that would be defensive PI.  So when the offensive player holds down the defenders arm so that he can't make a play on the ball, why is that not offensive PI?  Don't get me wrong.  Amazing catch.  Spectacular concentration.  But how is it legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JCPatriot said:

How was that not offensive PI?  The way I understand the rule is that the receiver and defender have an equal right to the ball.  If a defender held down a receiver's arm so that he couldn't make a play on the ball, that would be defensive PI.  So when the offensive player holds down the defenders arm so that he can't make a play on the ball, why is that not offensive PI?  Don't get me wrong.  Amazing catch.  Spectacular concentration.  But how is it legal?

I must have seen the play differently. The way I saw it they were hand fighting and Bryant had his arm held. 

 

Either way way to answer your question, I don’t think the defender was trying for the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

I must have seen the play differently. The way I saw it they were hand fighting and Bryant had his arm held. 

 

Hard to tell.  I haven't seen a real good replay view of it.  It didn't look like the defender was holding onto him in real time, though.  It looked like he was using his free arm to hold off the defender......either with physical separation or by keeping his arm down.  If the defender was holding onto his arm, then it definitely should have been defensive PI.  If not, I would say offensive PI.  Seems like it should have been something, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Hard to tell.  I haven't seen a real good replay view of it.  It didn't look like the defender was holding onto him in real time, though.  It looked like he was using his free arm to hold off the defender......either with physical separation or by keeping his arm down.  If the defender was holding onto his arm, then it definitely should have been defensive PI.  If not, I would say offensive PI.  Seems like it should have been something, though.

The way I see it is why would the receiver not want to use both hands in that situation? Either way I agree. Flag should’ve been called either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeah this concept of not being the year to draft an edge rusher is strange. We shouldn’t be drafting for need at #15. We should be drafting for the best player that we can put on this roster, positional value factored in. I would dispute that this isn’t the year. I think it could very well be. What a better d-line to be on the depth chart on than one with uncertainty at the edge moving forward in contract years. Let a rookie stud go out occasionally and get experience/see what he’s about. We might find a true pass rusher at 15.    what I would argue is it’s not the year to draft one of our “needs” at receiver or corner considering how deep these classes are. Day 2 should be just fine there. 
    • I don't understand this way of thinking.   When you draft a player in the first round, they sign a four year contract, with an option for a fifth year. If the player is as good as you hope, then the intention is likely to sign them to a second contract for another 4-5 years. So if you hope that this player is a foundational piece of your roster for the next decade, then why would you be so absorbed in the player's playing time in Year 1?   Specific to the Colts at DE, we do not have a game changing pass rusher right now. I like Kwity and Dayo, but so far, they aren't foundational pieces. They're both going into contract years, depending on whether the team picks up Kwity's option. And we have Ebukam, who is also good, but not a game changer. There's no reason any of these players can't be challenged for playing time, especially in pass rush situations. Dayo and Lewis play DE, but also rotate at 3T, so that can be worked out. And there are injuries, which will open up playing time.   DE historically has a learning curve, even for good players. Kayvon Thibodeaux was the 5th pick in 2022, he played 14 games as a rookie, 444 pass rush snaps, and had 4 sacks. He played 17 games in 2023, 498 pass rush snaps, 13 sacks.    Ultimately, passing on a high level edge rush prospect because you're not sure he can start in Year 1 seems incredibly shortsighted. 
    • I'll take the Buccaneers as my second team. That is, if I don't win the COLTS lottery!   Where do you keep your Buccaneers? Under my buckin' hat!
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...