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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaveA1102

      DaveA1102 1,864

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