Jump to content

Archived

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

oldunclemark

Jacksonville (+7.5) at New England (1-21-18)

Recommended Posts

@GoPats.  Did you quote the wrong person? :dunno:

 

I don't believe there's anything in my post referring to the league fixing games.  Once again :dunno:

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

The first PI call on Bouye could have gone either way. They were letting them play for the most part... Hogan had one ball thrown to him that was broken up but the guy clearly got there a second before the ball. I wouldn't have been annoyed if they hadn't called this one. (The second PI though, late in the game, was blatant, as a guy got Cooks around the neck/head before the ball got there.) 

 

The Gronk hit was CLASSIC helmet-to-helmet. If you don't think that should have been called, then you haven't been watching a lot of NFL football over the past five years or so. 

 

 

You go from saying the PI call on Bouye is pretty much unequivocally a defensive PI to saying it can go either way. Ok.

 

Agreed on the second. Hooked the neck, that’s a penalty.

 

If you think that’s a helmet to helmet you haven’t been watching a lot of football over the past ten years or so (sarcasm). So rather than address any of my points, where I stated Church was static in the sense that he kept his shoulder leading the way and that Gronk moved his head into the path of Church’s helmet, you throw out a statement where if I don’t agree with you I’m ignorant of the game.

 

It was a bad call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

Consider that of the 34 playoff games the Patriots have had under BB/TB, they've played only seven on them on the road.  

 

https://www.fanragsports.com/mcmullen-does-nfl-pete-morelli-problem/

 

http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/

 

Here's one talking about a call the Patriots did NOT get...

 

https://deadspin.com/the-real-reason-the-panthers-patriots-officials-picked-1467689096

 

 

My only main point throughout this, though, was to ask the obvious question... if the NFL is so dead set on helping the Patriots win games, why have they taken away draft picks and why did they suspend Brady for a quarter of a season when the rule book states that TEAMS (not players) are subject to FINES (not suspensions, or loss of draft picks)? 

 

The Patriots are not good for the NFL. The rest of the league and fans of the league hate them. Even casual fans are sick of them. They're not supposed to be doing what they're still doing... the league is not built in a way that makes it easy for teams to achieve sustained success. 

 

I’ll say this again, Brady was suspended for not cooperating. Not for having his footballs deflated.

 

And trumpeting the fact they were penalized as proof the NFL didn’t want the Pats in the SB over the Jags is silly. It was a huge media firestorm. He couldn’t just destroy the evidence (like tapes for example) like he did before. Action had to be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gramz said:

@GoPats.  Did you quote the wrong person? :dunno:

 

I don't believe there's anything in my post referring to the league fixing games.  Once again :dunno:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was responding to your statement: 

 

It boils down to. ..... there is just such a history there, that yeah now people look for it.  Myself included, and I can admit that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GoPats said:

 

I was responding to your statement: 

 

It boils down to. ..... there is just such a history there, that yeah now people look for it.  Myself included, and I can admit that.

 

Gotcha.  Okay fair enough.

 

And yes, I still feel the Pats get the benefit on controverial calls, or no calls etc.    

 

More than that, my frustration yesterday was with the sudden onset of posters, who normally don't post here (not referring to you, of course -you and I have had a decent friendship and good communication here) but the onset of newbies, or those that Only come here after the game to boast or gloat...  clearly for no other reason than to :stir: and then turn around and call us haters. 

Very transparent.

 

Anyway congrats to you... I know you're happy.  It's just unreasonable for anyone to think any of us here would be...or that we'd want to hear how damn great Tommy is. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bluebombers87 said:

I’ll say this again, Brady was suspended for not cooperating. Not for having his footballs deflated.

 

And trumpeting the fact they were penalized as proof the NFL didn’t want the Pats in the SB over the Jags is silly. It was a huge media firestorm. He couldn’t just destroy the evidence (like tapes for example) like he did before. Action had to be taken.

 

Suspended for not cooperating... just like Brett Favre with that thing in 2008 where he refused to give up his phone... oh wait a sec! He wasn't suspended! 

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bradys-team-favre-didnt-get-suspended-for-not-turning-over-his-phone/

 

That's right. Favre was just fined. Apparently texting lewd photos to young women is less of an offense than underinflated footballs. 

 

But then again... 

 

The NFL established less than two months before "Deflategate" that it was OK to mess around with footballs during games... you'd just get a warning, right? 

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/11218/nfl-aware-of-game-ball-incident-during-panthers-vikings

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Gotcha.  Okay fair enough.

 

And yes, I still feel the Pats get the benefit on controverial calls, or no calls etc.    

 

More than that, my frustration yesterday was with the sudden onset of posters, who normally don't post here (not referring to you, of course -you and I have had a decent friendship and good communication here) but the onset of newbies, or those that Only come here after the game to boast or gloat...  clearly for no other reason than to :stir:

Very transparent.

 

Anyway congrats to you... I know you're happy.  It's just unreasonable for anyone to think any of us here would be...or that we'd want to hear how damn great Tommy is. :P

 

Thank you Gramz. :thmup:

 

This site (and other versions of it before) have always been pretty Patriots-heavy, but I totally get what you're saying about those that don't come around other any other circumstances. 

 

I was actually just trying to point out that as the home team in 27 of the 34 playoff games they've been in since 2001, I'm sure the numbers show the Patriots having a lopsided advantage when it comes to penalties. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GoPats said:

 

Thank you Gramz. :thmup:

 

This site (and other versions of it before) have always been pretty Patriots-heavy, but I totally get what you're saying about those that don't come around other any other circumstances. 

 

I was actually just trying to point out that as the home team in 27 of the 34 playoff games they've been in since 2001, I'm sure the numbers show the Patriots having a lopsided advantage when it comes to penalties. 

 

 

So you agree...?? :)   Enjoy the run while you can. It won't always be like this, but it's been a good ride for your fans I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Pats with one flag tied the lowest number of flags for a team since the 2011 Pats against the Ravens in 2011. But it’s all coaching. Sure.

 

As for the Bouye PI, Brooks was running to the sideline. Bouye followed him. Bouye played tight coverage. Bouye looked over his left shoulder then was caught by Brooks right arm and then Bouye looked over his right shoulder for the ball. Bouye was established and attempting to locate the ball but was being struck by Brooks repeatedly. He didn’t cut him off nor ride him out of bounds. He followed him out. Also, the Jags has only two PI calls all year but had two in this game? Coaching?

 

Church had his shoulder lowered. Gronk came down and initiated the contact with Church’s helmet. I’ve attached an image showing this. It appears he was leading with his shoulder to place it on the chest of Gronk but Gronk lowered his helmet into Church’s.

 

The rest I’ll leave as you’re correct. My opinion is that those two penalties accounted for 47 or so yards on an 80 yard drive and came at a time when the Pats had no answer. 

 

 

BF953C5C-ADA5-44A8-9D14-83EEE1D5AACE.png

 

To be honest, yes coaching has something to do with it.  BB has always said that games are so close that one single play could make the difference many times, and at times that play could be a penalty that will continue a drive.  This is true about fumbling and other mistakes, players do not get playing time or are not for long on the team if they hurt the team.  

 

In the 2006 AFCCG Health Evans was the 12th man in the huddle on our last drive to end that game, we gain 11 yards but not a first down.  in 2008 we had the ball on the colts 26 2nd and 1 or something and TE Brady pushes down Mathis about a half second after the whisle and its 2nd (or 3rd) and 16 killing the drive, both players were off the team the next year with Brady being benched in that game and only playing a few snaps the rest of the season.

 

We will just have to differ on the Bouye PI, fair enough.

 

Regarding the Gronk hit, sorry i do not agree with you.  Bottom line players are responsible for their actions and they can not hit the head or neck area and this call has been consistently called for the last few years, there is really no room for refs to judge otherwise. If there is helmet contact it a penalty regardless of any mitigating factors.  

 

You have a still.  in looking at the video we see that Gronk was leaping for the ball and coming down, which Church can see and can judge accordingly.  He could of aimed for his elbow, or leaning forward himself and drilled his shoulder into Gronk's elbow area.  When you go high and you lead with your helmet shoulder you must accept the consequences.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2018 at 11:23 AM, IndyScribe said:

Why do teams always play conservative against the Pats in the second half? If Jags played like they did in the first half or played to win instead of not to lose, they would have won the game.

 

You make an interesting point . . . most times folks get conservative with a lead to burn the clock and thus limit the remaining possession for the opponent. 

 

I agree with you and would be nice if the teams will still play their game.

 

Interestingly this is exactly what the Falcons did in last years Super Bowl.  In their second to last drive up 8 points. Instead of running the ball/short passes to try to get a few first downs on their side of the field to end the game.  They decided on first down have a 7 step drop back and throw to a RB that ran free for like 20 yards (when all other WRs streaked down the field).  Two plays later, they throw a long pass to Jones that was almost picked.  Then try to throw the ball to get a first down in the red zone to effectively end the game with no time on clock and kick a field goal, but they get sacked, then holding call and have to punt, and everyone says they were stupid.  So sometimes folks complain about trying to close out games just doing what you do too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

So sometimes folks complain about trying to close out games just doing what you do too.  

 

Once they were in FG range, the Falcons' earlier sweeps and tosses going for runs could have been explored again to either hit the home run TD or at worst a FG. Instead they choose options that do not burn clock or force NE to use their time outs. Game and clock management from HC should have come more into play to arrive at a happy medium with the OC's play calling there, IMO. 

 

But then, Peyton and the Broncos were up 17-9 at the half in the 2015 AFCCG, played conservative and held on for a 20-18 win vs the Patriots. When you play conservative, you expect your D to come through and the Jaguars' D did not come through, IMO, playing scared, at least it seemed to me with their play calling instead of forcing the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gramz said:

So you agree...?? :)   Enjoy the run while you can. It won't always be like this, but it's been a good ride for your fans I know.

 

I do, it's hard to disagree when the numbers are pretty obvious. That tells us the Patriots have fewer penalties called against them, but it doesn't necessarily tell us why, right? (And my point was that with home-field in the playoffs, you'll benefit in that regard... all teams do, it seems.) 

 

I honestly think a ton of it is coaching, though. You just don't see a lot of pre-snap penalties on the Pats. 

 

All that said, you only have to go back to 2014... the Patriots were one of the most highly penalized teams in the league that year. (138 calls against them, 109 against their opponents.) 

 

http://www.nflpenalties.com/index.php?&year=2014

 

I think anyone complaining about Sunday, though, is just looking for something to complain about. As it's been pointed out, there were three pre-snap penalties, the call on the helmet hit on Gronk (which was correct IMO), and the two PI calls on Bouye (one of which was borderline, the other was blatant). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Once they were in FG range, their sweeps and tosses going for runs could have been explored again to either hit the home run TD or at worst a FG. Instead they choose options that do not burn clock or force NE to use their time outs. Game and clock management from HC should have come more into play to arrive at a happy medium with the OC's play calling there, IMO. 

 

Well they tried a sweep on 1st and 10 from the 22 and lost a yard and the clock ran.  Then they tried a pass, and if successful, would of made a first down in the red zone giving them 5 downs to kill the clock instead of just 3 if they ran three times from the 22 and kicked the field goal, this would kill another 1:20 on the clock.

 

A first down there would of not only killed another 1:20 of clock, made the field goal attempt closer and given them a chance to get another first down, which would of won the game with three subsequent knee downs with no need to give the ball back to NE.

 

So i see where Atlanta was coming from.  Seeing that no one all year every punted from 1st and 22, one would guess that the Atlanta coaches might of been thinking, either we end the game as mentioned in my prior paragraph, or we simply kick the field goal from somewhere between the 22 and 35 yard line. 

 

I do not fault the Falcons for playing the percentages and leaving the options open for a closer field goal or taking a knee to end the game.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG....25 pages....are we really going to bring up every petty Patriot argument and shady thing every time they win a game? Do I think they get more calls at home...sure..most teams do...the job is to make them go on the road to win in the playoffs. They are a well coached team with an all time great qb....it should surprise no one when they win...quite the opposite really. Perhaps its because they are well coached and so successful do they get the benefit of the doubt on close plays....perhaps...maybe the officials subconsciously don't call them for as much because they are typically in the right place and making the right play most of the time. Who knows....and while I was miffed at a couple calls and a couple no calls...I am losing no sleep over it and not quite sure why 3 days later we are still arguing over this stuff. Pats fans and Colts fans are never going to see eye to eye on much. I don't know what more there is to gain by arguing about it. Heck at this point people will be arguing over if Brady wears boxers or briefs and somehow it will be a scandal. Everyone knows the past...no amount of defending it or try to make it more than what it is will change anything. They still have 5 SBs (likely 6) and yet they still have had some shady things go down during that period that they also have to live with. No amount of ** will take those SBs away and no amount of explanation will make their indiscretions disappear either. Just like the reign of a King or President...you have your accomplishments and your scandals/mistakes...but neither will take the other away and depending on who you ask (supporters/detractors) it will always be viewed through a prism. Let's all agree to move on.....25 pages of comments is more than enough for a simple football game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

What's kind of funny/ironic about this...


The Jags keep the ball on the ground to try to burn clock, and the reaction is, "WHY DID THEY PLAY IT SO CONSERVATIVE???!!!"

 

But the Falcons, who have a MUCH better passing attack than Jacksonville, try to throw it in last year's Super Bowl and everyone is all, "OMG WHY ARE THEY NOT RUNNING IT TO KILL CLOCK????!!" 

 

Nothing against you of course, I just think it's funny! :lol:

 

 

 

Because the Falcons had a 1st and 10 at the Pats 22 yard line up 8. All you do is run 3 times and make the Patriots burn their timeouts. At the worst it's around a 40 yard FG for a kicker who's largely been money. You go up 11 and make the Patriots score twice. And if the Patriots still pull it out, the offense wouldn't be blamed, it'd be the defense for allowing two scoring drives and the special teams for giving up an onside kick in between. Also if you go up 11 the Patriots would need a two point conversion on one of their drives to keep a tie in play, if they miss it they need another touchdown.

 

Instead the Falcons played like someone playing Madden for the first time and took themselves out of FG range.

 

Not only that but the prior drive where Ryan was strip-sacked on a 3rd and 1. If you run it and get it, you keep the drive alive and take time off the clock, and it's still a 16 point game. If you run and don't get it, you can at least punt it away and make the Patriots go the length of the field and not give them a short field on that fumble recovery.

 

Why am I reliving this again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Pats with one flag tied the lowest number of flags for a team since the 2011 Pats against the Ravens in 2011. But it’s all coaching. Sure.

 

As for the Bouye PI, Brooks was running to the sideline. Bouye followed him. Bouye played tight coverage. Bouye looked over his left shoulder then was caught by Brooks right arm and then Bouye looked over his right shoulder for the ball. Bouye was established and attempting to locate the ball but was being struck by Brooks repeatedly. He didn’t cut him off nor ride him out of bounds. He followed him out. Also, the Jags has only two PI calls all year but had two in this game? Coaching?

 

I have 3 pictures, the first 2 of which shows illegal contact some 15 yards downfield by the defender

 

https://pix.sfly.com/pbBrSq

 

https://pix.sfly.com/WJA9dv

 

Contact like that is a 5 yard penalty, auto 1st down, but  it was superseded by events downfield while the ball was in the air-

 

https://pix.sfly.com/JO52GN

 

 

 

Quote

Church had his shoulder lowered. Gronk came down and initiated the contact with Church’s helmet. I’ve attached an image showing this. It appears he was leading with his shoulder to place it on the chest of Gronk but Gronk lowered his helmet into Church’s.

 

BF953C5C-ADA5-44A8-9D14-83EEE1D5AACE.png

 

By NFL rule for a long while now that  Gronkowski is declared a receiver in a defenseless posture.  It is therefore illegal by official NFL rules to violate the following-

 

******************************************

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:


(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and


(2) {snipped}

******************************************

 

Some 7-8 years ago, Jon Gruden ignited a media firestorm when he criticized officials for making a similar call against Falcons linebacker Lofton on a Saints receiver drawing a flag.

 

 The NFL quickly came out (Mike Pereira at the time) and defended their rule, and the on field ruling back then. Nothing has changed and Polian has clarified many times since then it does not matter if the defenseless receiver is falling while an incoming defender closes in and that type contact is made.  It was then, still is now, and will forever be (because the league is out to protect QB;'s and defenseless posture players) a defensive personal foul. Even if the offensive player 'ducks' into the collision. Byproduct of increasing safety in a game that will never ever be truly safe.
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoPats said:

 

Suspended for not cooperating... just like Brett Favre with that thing in 2008 where he refused to give up his phone... oh wait a sec! He wasn't suspended! 

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bradys-team-favre-didnt-get-suspended-for-not-turning-over-his-phone/

 

That's right. Favre was just fined. Apparently texting lewd photos to young women is less of an offense than underinflated footballs. 

 

But then again... 

 

The NFL established less than two months before "Deflategate" that it was OK to mess around with footballs during games... you'd just get a warning, right? 

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/11218/nfl-aware-of-game-ball-incident-during-panthers-vikings

 

 

 

I didn’t see anything in that article about Favre refusing to hand over his phone. I may have missed it but don’t see it.

 

And even if he did, the league can still punish a player differently for SIMILAR offenses (in Favres case he was not entirely candid) vs Brady’s being told they would like Brady’s lawyer to send over documents showing very specific information off of a phone (not asking for the phone itself) and Brady then destroying that phone. Apples to oranges.

 

I’m not going to rehash Brady needing to deflate footballs due to his weak hands. I do like however you trying to shift the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I have 3 pictures, the first 2 of which shows illegal contact some 15 yards downfield by the defender

 

https://pix.sfly.com/pbBrSq

 

https://pix.sfly.com/WJA9dv

 

Contact like that is a 5 yard penalty, auto 1st down, but  it was superseded by events downfield while the ball was in the air-

 

https://pix.sfly.com/JO52GN

 

 

 

 

By NFL rule for a long while now that  Gronkowski is declared a receiver in a defenseless posture.  It is therefore illegal by official NFL rules to violate the following-

 

******************************************

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:


(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and


(2) {snipped}

******************************************

 

Some 7-8 years ago, Jon Gruden ignited a media firestorm when he criticized officials for making a similar call against Falcons linebacker Lofton on a Saints receiver drawing a flag.

 

 The NFL quickly came out (Mike Pereira at the time) and defended their rule, and the on field ruling back then. Nothing has changed and Polian has clarified many times since then it does not matter if the defenseless receiver is falling while an incoming defender closes in and that type contact is made.  It was then, still is now, and will forever be (because the league is out to protect QB;'s and defenseless posture players) a defensive personal foul. Even if the offensive player 'ducks' into the collision. Byproduct of increasing safety in a game that will never ever be truly safe.
 

 

 

Right so aim low and end his career by blowing out his knees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yehoodi said:

 

To be honest, yes coaching has something to do with it.  BB has always said that games are so close that one single play could make the difference many times, and at times that play could be a penalty that will continue a drive.  This is true about fumbling and other mistakes, players do not get playing time or are not for long on the team if they hurt the team.  

 

In the 2006 AFCCG Health Evans was the 12th man in the huddle on our last drive to end that game, we gain 11 yards but not a first down.  in 2008 we had the ball on the colts 26 2nd and 1 or something and TE Brady pushes down Mathis about a half second after the whisle and its 2nd (or 3rd) and 16 killing the drive, both players were off the team the next year with Brady being benched in that game and only playing a few snaps the rest of the season.

 

We will just have to differ on the Bouye PI, fair enough.

 

Regarding the Gronk hit, sorry i do not agree with you.  Bottom line players are responsible for their actions and they can not hit the head or neck area and this call has been consistently called for the last few years, there is really no room for refs to judge otherwise. If there is helmet contact it a penalty regardless of any mitigating factors.  

 

You have a still.  in looking at the video we see that Gronk was leaping for the ball and coming down, which Church can see and can judge accordingly.  He could of aimed for his elbow, or leaning forward himself and drilled his shoulder into Gronk's elbow area.  When you go high and you lead with your helmet shoulder you must accept the consequences.  

 

 

I was ok with everything you said until you said Church could’ve changed his course. There was no way he could’ve altered his trajectory and predicted what Gronk could’ve done. I showed the still because to illustrate he was lowered (Gronk was airborne at the time) and leading with his shoulder. 

 

Ill say say it again, Church was doing the only thing he could in that situation. The alternative is to go low and possible end Gronk’s career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I have 3 pictures, the first 2 of which shows illegal contact some 15 yards downfield by the defender

 

https://pix.sfly.com/pbBrSq

 

https://pix.sfly.com/WJA9dv

 

Contact like that is a 5 yard penalty, auto 1st down, but  it was superseded by events downfield while the ball was in the air-

 

https://pix.sfly.com/JO52GN

 

 

 

 

By NFL rule for a long while now that  Gronkowski is declared a receiver in a defenseless posture.  It is therefore illegal by official NFL rules to violate the following-

 

******************************************

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:


(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and


(2) {snipped}

******************************************

 

Some 7-8 years ago, Jon Gruden ignited a media firestorm when he criticized officials for making a similar call against Falcons linebacker Lofton on a Saints receiver drawing a flag.

 

 The NFL quickly came out (Mike Pereira at the time) and defended their rule, and the on field ruling back then. Nothing has changed and Polian has clarified many times since then it does not matter if the defenseless receiver is falling while an incoming defender closes in and that type contact is made.  It was then, still is now, and will forever be (because the league is out to protect QB;'s and defenseless posture players) a defensive personal foul. Even if the offensive player 'ducks' into the collision. Byproduct of increasing safety in a game that will never ever be truly safe.
 

 

 

The first pic shows the two at least three yards apart? Not sure what you’re doing wth that. I’ve said my piece with the rest. Just note, hand fighting does not mean illegal contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

Right so aim low and end his career by blowing out his knees.

 

In the NFL eyes, one is debilitating to a players future lifestyle (hits to the knees) while the other is debilitating to a players ability to be cognitive and function ( CTE ).  Which one do you think the NFL is going to (and did) make rules to protect/prevent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

In the NFL eyes, one is debilitating to a players future lifestyle (hits to the knees) while the other is debilitating to a players ability to be cognitive and function ( CTE ).  Which one do you think the NFL is going to (and did) make rules to protect/prevent?

The answer is obviously concussions. They’re being sued over this. I’ve not argued this point. 

 

What will wnd a players career faster, a concussion or a torn ACL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

The first pic shows the two at least three yards apart? Not sure what you’re doing wth that. I’ve said my piece with the rest. Just note, hand fighting does not mean illegal contact.

 

That first pic shows they were easily beyond the first down marker and another few yards later is where Illegal Contact (more than 5 yards beyond the  L.O.S.) by redirecting the receiver in his route from the defender is made.  It was a stiff arm to the chest and impeding route running. not hand fighting at that point. That play is at least a 5 yard penalty and automatic first down, but they called P.I. later, not the IC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

That first pic shows they were easily beyond the first down marker and another few yards later is where Illegal Contact (more than 5 yards beyond the  L.O.S.) by redirecting the receiver in his route from the defender is made.  It was a stiff arm to the chest and impeding route running. not hand fighting at that point. That play is at least a 5 yard penalty and automatic first down, but they called P.I. later, not the IC.

Cooks was running a sideline route. He was angled towards the sideline. Cooks initiates first contact with his right arm. Bouye is allowed to defend himself per the rules (hand fighting). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bluebombers87 said:

The answer is obviously concussions. They’re being sued over this. I’ve not argued this point. 

 

What will wnd a players career faster, a concussion or a torn ACL?

Which one is more likely to cripple a player for the rest of his life, an ACL tear that can be surgically repaired as if it never happened, or CTE, for which there is no known cure or therapy?

 

No one ever died of a torn ACL, dude.  CTE has literally killed people.  Derek Boogaard of the NHL and Aaron Hernandez of the NFL for examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bluebombers87 said:

Cooks was running a sideline route. He was angled towards the sideline. Cooks initiates first contact with his right arm. Bouye is allowed to defend himself per the rules (hand fighting). 

 

You have to have blinders on to think that that was hand fighting.


Besides, the pass interference is also a result of Bouye's body position as much as what his hands and arms are doing.  The hand contact itself could be justly flagged  for PI, and I've seen lesser hand contact cause the handkerchiefs to come out, but cutting off Cooks' route the way he did is also a no no and puts it in a whole nother category.

 

Yes Bouye is entitled to his space but he isn't entitled to run Cooks off the road like he did.  He can't use his entitlement to his space as a defensive weapon to impede a receiver.  Which is, of course, exactly what he tried to do and why what he tried to do made the laundry hit the floor.

 

It was the fact that Bouye illegally cut off Cooks' route that ensured that the ball would land so seemingly far away from the play.  Cooks is definitely fast enough and explosive enough to have gotten to that ball if Bouye hadn't interfered with him.  By illegally cutting him off, Bouye forced Cooks away from the pass.  That's the textbook definition of pass interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are focused on PI calls as evidence of the Pats getting breaks. If the league were really trying to assist the Pats, then there's no way they would have allowed that 4th quarter fumble on the trick play to stand. They could easily have overturned that on review. That was at a critical point in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George Peterson said:

Which one is more likely to cripple a player for the rest of his life, an ACL tear that can be surgically repaired as if it never happened, or CTE, for which there is no known cure or therapy?

 

No one ever died of a torn ACL, dude.  CTE has literally killed people.  Derek Boogaard of the NHL and Aaron Hernandez of the NFL for examples.

Is that what I said? I never once said an ACL injury is worse. Goodness kids these days must not be taught proper comprehension. I’ve acknowledged concussions are worse. My whole point, which apparently you missed, is that by forcing players to avoid going anywhere near the upper body, you dramatically increase the chances of significant leg injuries, including ACL injuries. By the way, a torn ACL can never be replaced “as if it never happened”. That’s just plain old ignorance dude. 

 

As research stands now, more careers have been ended by knee injuries than concussions/CTE. Whether or not that changes in ten years who knows.

 

BTW Hernandez only had one logged concussion in his NFL career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bad Morty said:

People are focused on PI calls as evidence of the Pats getting breaks. If the league were really trying to assist the Pats, then there's no way they would have allowed that 4th quarter fumble on the trick play to stand. They could easily have overturned that on review. That was at a critical point in the game.

They also blew that play dead but that’s not exclusive to the Pats. That’s a league wide problem. 

 

Also so that was pretty clear a fumble. It’s those ticky tacky calls that are in the spotlight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George Peterson said:

You have to have blinders on to think that that was hand fighting.


Besides, the pass interference is also a result of Bouye's body position as much as what his hands and arms are doing.  The hand contact itself could be justly flagged  for PI, and I've seen lesser hand contact cause the handkerchiefs to come out, but cutting off Cooks' route the way he did is also a no no and puts it in a whole nother category.

 

Yes Bouye is entitled to his space but he isn't entitled to run Cooks off the road like he did.  He can't use his entitlement to his space as a defensive weapon to impede a receiver.  Which is, of course, exactly what he tried to do and why what he tried to do made the laundry hit the floor.

 

It was the fact that Bouye illegally cut off Cooks' route that ensured that the ball would land so seemingly far away from the play.  Cooks is definitely fast enough and explosive enough to have gotten to that ball if Bouye hadn't interfered with him.  By illegally cutting him off, Bouye forced Cooks away from the pass.  That's the textbook definition of pass interference.

Per the rule, once a defender is contacted by a receiver, the defender is allowed to defend themselves. This idea that no defender ever touches a receiver is just plain silly.

 

And he never cut him off. Please re-read my previous posts as I don’t feel like repeating myself again. It’s poor form to ignore previous points in a thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, buffalo34 said:

 

Because the Falcons had a 1st and 10 at the Pats 22 yard line up 8. All you do is run 3 times and make the Patriots burn their timeouts. At the worst it's around a 40 yard FG for a kicker who's largely been money. You go up 11 and make the Patriots score twice. And if the Patriots still pull it out, the offense wouldn't be blamed, it'd be the defense for allowing two scoring drives and the special teams for giving up an onside kick in between. Also if you go up 11 the Patriots would need a two point conversion on one of their drives to keep a tie in play, if they miss it they need another touchdown.

 

Instead the Falcons played like someone playing Madden for the first time and took themselves out of FG range.

 

Not only that but the prior drive where Ryan was strip-sacked on a 3rd and 1. If you run it and get it, you keep the drive alive and take time off the clock, and it's still a 16 point game. If you run and don't get it, you can at least punt it away and make the Patriots go the length of the field and not give them a short field on that fumble recovery.

 

Why am I reliving this again?

 

You are reliving this again 'cause we know you love the Pats. . . :)

 

All GoPats and I are saying is that we find it kind of comical how folks like to be Monday morning coaches.  When teams get conservative we yell, then they play their normal game we yell. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

 

As i mentioned in my earlier post to Chad72, the REASON why the Falcons were at the 22 was just because they were not conservative.  Not saying right or wrong, but instead of running a conservative offense to get a 3-4 first downs to end the game, they ran the length of the field with a few risky passing, with the Jones one could of easily been picked.

 

Once they got to the 22, and with NO team ALL year having to punt from that standpoint, there was not risk or reason to think that they would punt.  So why not try to get a first down, get closer for a field goal attempt and leave an option to get another first down to end the game. 

 

And remember Atlanta's coach Dan Quinn was on that Seahawk team that came back against GB in the '14 NFCCG with two late scores to win, so it was more likely that was in the back of his mind as opposed to worrying about punting when it NEVER happened all year.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bluebombers87 said:

Per the rule, once a defender is contacted by a receiver, the defender is allowed to defend themselves. This idea that no defender ever touches a receiver is just plain silly.

 

And he never cut him off. Please re-read my previous posts as I don’t feel like repeating myself again. It’s poor form to ignore previous points in a thread.

 

I agree it was a fumble...but again - the premise here is that the league is trying to help the Patriots win. At that point, it's the 4th quarter and they are down 10. What's the point of "rigging" the penalties all game long if you are going to let that play stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bad Morty said:

 

I agree it was a fumble...but again - the premise here is that the league is trying to help the Patriots win. At that point, it's the 4th quarter and they are down 10. What's the point of "rigging" the penalties all game long if you are going to let that play stand?

There are plays that are immutably obvious. Plays that can be challenged. PI cannot. There is holding every play I’m told. Plenty of influence can be had there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

I was ok with everything you said until you said Church could’ve changed his course. There was no way he could’ve altered his trajectory and predicted what Gronk could’ve done. I showed the still because to illustrate he was lowered (Gronk was airborne at the time) and leading with his shoulder. 

 

Ill say say it again, Church was doing the only thing he could in that situation. The alternative is to go low and possible end Gronk’s career.

 

Fair enough, we just going to have to agree to disagree.  For the most part Church knew that he and Gronk were going to me at the time Gronk touched down and imo would know his height, it is not like Gronk ducked his head 1.5 feet.

 

For me a player could lower his body (well lower his torso) so that he aims his shoulder for Gronk's ribs, so if he is a little high he gets the bicep, a little low he get above the hip, but no head no knee.   

 

The Jags actually drill Gronk this way earlier in the game.  (sry can not find video of it)

 

(I hope the videos come through)

 

Also, here is the Thomas hit i mentioned, you can see as he approached Gronk, he turns his head to the side, lowers his torso and aims his shoulder right for Gronk's chest (best view pause it at 0:35).  A moment after the hit Thomas's torso is almost parallel to the ground and his legs still upright, he is at 90 degrees

 

 

And in the instant game Burkhead got drilled in the back and the defender lowered his torso as he approached Burkhead and drilled him in the middle of his back.  Best view is at the end of the video. In both case the defenders were not upright thus bringing the helmet to helmet possibility off the table. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Per the rule, once a defender is contacted by a receiver, the defender is allowed to defend themselves. This idea that no defender ever touches a receiver is just plain silly.

{snip}

 

The rule is-

 

" Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender cannot initiate contact with a receiver who is attempting to evade him. A defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. "

 

I watched the video many times, The receiver appears he wants to evade and made a weak attempt to keep separation, but defender never relents pushing on the receivers body (not handfighting), and the receiver has to resort to try swatting his hand off him as they go downfield.  That's not a defender protecting himself from impending contact.  That's initiating contact and re-directing a receiver in his route.  When I was tracking IC penalties a few years ago on this forum after a 'point of emphasis' ruling in the preseason, I saw much less activity getting illegal contact flags. I wish there were multiple angles of this.  If you know of any, that could be telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

The rule is-

 

" Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender cannot initiate contact with a receiver who is attempting to evade him. A defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. "

 

I watched the video many times, The receiver appears he wants to evade and made a weak attempt to keep separation, but defender never relents pushing on the receivers body (not handfighting), and the receiver has to resort to try swatting his hand off him as they go downfield.  That's not a defender protecting himself from impending contact.  That's initiating contact and re-directing a receiver in his route.  When I was tracking IC penalties a few years ago on this forum after a 'point of emphasis' ruling in the preseason, I saw much less activity getting illegal contact flags. I wish there were multiple angles of this.  If you know of any, that could be telling.

But the receiver was running that direction, and the defender followed him while still engaging in hand fighting. I never saw the receiver attempt to make any serious return to the ball or any attempt for that matter.  By your definition,  early every pass play could be called for PI but is not. That’s the big issue. It’s like holding. Happens a lot but rarely is called consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bluebombers87 said:

Per the rule, once a defender is contacted by a receiver, the defender is allowed to defend themselves. This idea that no defender ever touches a receiver is just plain silly.

 

And he never cut him off. Please re-read my previous posts as I don’t feel like repeating myself again. It’s poor form to ignore previous points in a thread.

He completely cut him off.  The hand fighting rode Cooks out of bounds.  Bouye is entitled to his space, but he's not entitled to run a receiver off the road.  His entitlement to his space does not also entitle him to use body position to force a receiver to either run through him or run out of bounds, which is exactly what Bouye was doing on that play.

 

"the idea that no defender ever touches a receiver is just plain silly."

 

You're right.  Refs will let things go if it's a 50-50 thing, or it doesn't have a real effect on the play, or if they aren't sure of what they saw, or if they feel the defender is trying to stay within the spirit of the rules.  This was not a 50-50 play.  Bouye had both hands on Cooks and rode him out of bounds  not even 10 feet from an official where he had a perfect view of exactly what happened.  No referee in the entire NFL is going to keep his flag in his pocket if he sees that.

 

The closest thing you have to a point is that we've all seen worse PI let go by the officials.  Doesn't really have any bearing on this incident though, which is textbook PI. Bouye manhandled Cooks out of bounds and prevented him from getting to the ball. You can't do that legally in pro football and refs have the right to throw the flag whenever they see that behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be water under the bridge at this point.  Time to move on and for the Eagle(s) to land in Minnesota.  

 

Hopefully they'll  prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Once they were in FG range, the Falcons' earlier sweeps and tosses going for runs could have been explored again to either hit the home run TD or at worst a FG. Instead they choose options that do not burn clock or force NE to use their time outs. Game and clock management from HC should have come more into play to arrive at a happy medium with the OC's play calling there, IMO. 

 

But then, Peyton and the Broncos were up 17-9 at the half in the 2015 AFCCG, played conservative and held on for a 20-18 win vs the Patriots. When you play conservative, you expect your D to come through and the Jaguars' D did not come through, IMO, playing scared, at least it seemed to me with their play calling instead of forcing the issue.

 

Sry forgot to respond to your second paragraph.  Yes there are a few ways to play and one expect their players to play as expected regardless of which you choose, play conservative, keep playing your game, or somewhere in between.  

 

In the end there really is no right or wrong answer most of the time as sometimes your players or opponents do not or do perform in a matter not conducive to ones selection.  

 

So agreed with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, GoPats said:

 

Suspended for not cooperating... just like Brett Favre with that thing in 2008 where he refused to give up his phone... oh wait a sec! He wasn't suspended! 

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bradys-team-favre-didnt-get-suspended-for-not-turning-over-his-phone/

 

That's right. Favre was just fined. Apparently texting lewd photos to young women is less of an offense than underinflated footballs. 

 

But then again... 

 

The NFL established less than two months before "Deflategate" that it was OK to mess around with footballs during games... you'd just get a warning, right? 

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/11218/nfl-aware-of-game-ball-incident-during-panthers-vikings

 

 

 

You are really trying to compare someone personal sexting controversy to tampering with things to affect a football game? 

You don't see the difference there...really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...