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

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

55 seconds, 2 timeouts and a knee!

I don't want to ask Blake to make plays downfield

Share this post


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

14-10......Jax....a lot better than I thought they'd be

Yeah I agree but watch what happens now. Lets see how the 3rd Qtr goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

55 secons, 2 timeouts and a knee!

They aren't peyton. Although, we did it in the superbowl against the saints.

Share this post


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

Defenseless receiver....doesn't matter.

Every receiver is defenseless when making a catch doesn’t mean you can’t hit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

Its unnecessary roughness to hit the person receiving a pass?

 

Yes, if it is in the head/neck area. A receiver must become a runner before that is allowed. Defenseless Receiver rule... the second call was suspect on the P.I. but it was illegal contact at the minimum as defender made contact well pas the 5 yard line beyond the line of scrimmage.  So it wa sat least a 5 yard penalty and auto 1st down, but they gave them the P.I. instead.

Share this post


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

Every receiver is defenseless when making a catch doesn’t mean you can’t hit them.

You just can't hit them in the head...accident or not.

Share this post


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

Defenseless receiver....doesn't matter.

Shouldn't be considered defenseless. Just a dumb rule by the NFL, IMO. If going to catch a pass makes one defenseless every tackle should be a flag.

Share this post


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

He turned his body to avoid targeting him. Gronk just stumbled down to him. There was nothing he could do to avoid it he even pulled up.

 

2 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Every receiver is defenseless when making a catch doesn’t mean you can’t hit them.

 

Cant hit a receiver in the head / neck area until he is clearly established as a 'runner'

 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

Share this post


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

Shouldn't be considered defensess. Just a dumb rule by the NFL, IMO. If going to catch a pass makes one defenseless every tackle should be a flag.

Blame it on the NFL getting sued by former players. 

Share this post


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

Shouldn't be considered defenseless. Just a dumb rule by the NFL, IMO. If going to catch a pass makes one defenseless every tackle should be a flag.

If he leads with the other shoulder he probably doesn't get the penalty.  Easy for me to say from my recliner though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, superrep1967 said:

Blame it on the NFL getting sued by former players. 

That's exactly right...The NFL had to do something to limit obvious head shots whether they're intentional or not (and that one was kinda intentional)

Share this post


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

Shouldn't be considered defenseless. Just a dumb rule by the NFL, IMO. If going to catch a pass makes one defenseless every tackle should be a flag.

 

you can hit the receiver, you just can't touch his helmet in any fashion while in a defenseless position, even by 'accident' or it is a penalty.  It is the rule.

Share this post


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

You just can't hit them in the head...accident or not.

I agree but when the receiver falls like that into you and your turning and not leading with the head...that to me is not the spirit of the rule. It only got called because he didn’t get up...but there was no targeting nothing...it’s not the defenders fault Gronks head dropped when he stumbled and the sides hit each other. I can live with that call to protect guys but then to follow it up with PI when the receiver ran his route out of bounds because the defender pinched him that’s just perfect defense...horrible.

Share this post


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

If he leads with the other shoulder he probably doesn't get the penalty.  Easy for me to say from my recliner though.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Gronk will definitely be back lol

That issue is being 'decided' as we speak and I think you know how it will be decided

Share this post


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

And if that players moves his head/neck into the path of said defender?

 

Still a penalty.  Just bad fortune for the defender, but now a part of the game. It won't be change back, either

Share this post


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

 

Still a penalty.  Just bad fortune for the defender, but now a part of the game. It won't be change back, either

So the point is to deter those hrs. How does one not do something they can’t control?

Share this post


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

That issue is being 'decided' as we speak and I think you know how it will be decided

I'm all about safety first.  If he's showing signs of concussion he should sit.   And I'm not just saying that because I want the Jags to win.    I'm not heartless...   His well being should come first.

Share this post


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

 

you can hit the receiver, you just can't touch his helmet in any fashion while in a defenseless position, even by 'accident' or it is a penalty.  It is the rule.

That’s the rule...that isn’t the spirit of the rule. It’s meant to protect receivers from being targeted and defenders from leading with crown and having head to head collisions. Not a wr who trips and falls into a defender who clearly pulled up and even turned his back to the play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be 17-3 or even 21-3. 3 huge penalties has kept the Pats in this = the delay of game, hit on Gronk, and that Interference on a ball that wasn't catchable.

Share this post


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

I cant get into Justin Timberlake in the Super Bowl

Makes my wife happy lol...that’s about all that matters to NFL is the casual viewer not the hardcore sport fans.

Share this post


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

Makes my wife happy lol...that’s about all that matters to NFL is the casual viewer not the hardcore sport fans.

That's 100 percent totally true

 

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.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I wouldn't consider #10 a diss..... but I have a bit of an issue with the Cowpies ranked #2 at the same time.   We not only shut them out last season, we out manned, out-muscled and intimidated them in a way that none of us have seen a Colts team do to any team in a long, long time.   You could say "well its only one game".... and that's true.   But that was a statement game, and I just don't see how Brandt can justify a #2 ranking for Dallas given each team's additions this off-season....not to mention all those other teams he has them ranked ahead of.   As for the Colts...on our own merits.... I would have us closer to the middle of the pack on this list, around 7th and certainly ahead of Dallas.
    • His mom sounds awesome.  
    • Sigh...........   This is beyond really frustrating.    You're accusing me of things I literally haven't done.     That's very Irish of you.    Really annoying.      You ask for benefit of the doubt while never giving it out yourself.   I've put certain things into bold.   I'll try taking them one at a time.   Your first bold...   that this is not me saying that teams that aren't doing this are stupid.    I'm sorry, but when you declare that you've come up that you think is clearly and obvously better,  that you think you've re-invented the wheel and sliced bread,  it certainly feels like you're casting a disapporving eye toward any team that's not doing things your preferred way as a matter of course.   Then you claim,  that I want Ballard in the building ASAP,  but not before January.    Let me see if you understand this word.....   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!   Was that clear enough for you?       If Irsay had decided in the spring of 16 to fire Grigson and hire Ballard in the spring, I would've been ok with it.   It's not desirable,  but if Irsay made that call THEN,  I'd be ok with it.     Where YOU mis-read me,  is that roughly 95 of owners make this decision during the season.    They see things they don't like and they decide during the season to make a change -- typically when the season ends.    Sometimes, an exec will be fired during the season and someone like Dorsey comes in during the season to oversee things and learn about the organization.    I'm fine with that.  There's no record of me opposing that.   I start with January,  because that's when the business season starts for front office and coaches.   Period.   The NFL views it as preferrable.    But making the switch in the spring is doable, as I've said in every post, and which you have ignored or confused badly.    But if Ballard had been hired in the spring of 16,  I'd have been fine with it.   This isn't the first time I've said some version of this.    This is not some ah-ha moment.   As to the bold declaring that there are tons of qualified guys and that CHOOSING the best guy is another story.   Here's my reponse to that.   No.   nonsense.     They are the same story.    They are connected.    Because you play down the fact that most GM's and most HC's fail.   They get fired before their 4 or 5 year contracts expire.   The owner has seen enough and makes a change.   Saying there are always qualified guys is meaningless.    Because FINDING the best guy who will succeed, isn't just important,  it's EVERYTHING.   All 32 teams can announce they hired a qualified guy.    That isn't hard.    But the vast majority of teams are introducing his successor in a few years.    That's why a franchise like Pittsburgh has very little turnover either in HC or the front office.   While franchises like the Jets or Buffalo or Miami are introducing someone new so often, you can practically set your watch to it.     Generally speaking,  the new GM has a long history of scouting and evaluating talent.   The new HC has a history of success, both as a position coach and a coordinator.   They can easily be called qualified,  (though new guys like Kliff Kingsbury and Zack Taylor do NOT have a long track record of success)  But the vast majority of hires...   are soon enough fired.   That doesn't speak well to their qualifications.      As to you meaning what you're saying...   Of course you mean what you say and I stated that clearly.  I don't know why this should rub you the wrong way.  I literally wrote that I know you mean what you say.    I said what I said as a rhetorical point,  not an attacking point.    My ultimate point was made at the end of my first post to you.   You typically write persuasive arguments.    You're able to frequently made me see your viewpoint.    But not here.    You accuse me of not considering your argument.    I'm sorry,  I am considering what you write.   But I don't see the typical high quality Superman argument.   I don't see points that connect.    Your argument feels like the one you'd make for doable.   It doesn't convince me at all that it's preferable.  
    • Yeah, Ballard said he's a patient guy, and he doesn't mind waiting to pick. We almost traded back from 34 as well if Rock wasn't there. I personally love the "trade back" strategy at the end of round 1, and wouldn't mind doing it in most every draft. A late 1st for a mid-second and early/mid second (from the Redskins) over two drafts is fine with me!
    • Haven't done research on the 2020 draft yet, but if it ends up having an elite WR or OT, I wouldn't mind trading up this year. We'll have to see where we finish (hopefully 32 ), and make a decision from there. Ballard landing the Redskins 2nd rounder may be a brilliant move.
  • Members

    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 416

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CoachLite

      CoachLite 369

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jared Jammer

      Jared Jammer 97

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Surge89

      Surge89 965

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Jcrane

      Jcrane 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SVFD Colts Fan

      SVFD Colts Fan 37

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,322

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Old Colt

      Old Colt 292

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • pacolts56

      pacolts56 3,035

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • gnet550

      gnet550 219

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...