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

    • Good point.  I think this has serious merit 
    • My take   1. We overachieved last season. Period 2. We played at KC 3. TY limited the offense because he was so injured.  4. We played a very very good coach with time to prepare and his guys got some rest too and time to scout the team. Remember, Reich is well known to Reid as well by now.  5. Not having Hooker really mattered 6. Play calling was a bit blah 7. How does Vinny automatic miss those kicks? 8. A strip sack for us turns into a strip sack for them a few plays later, that hurt.  9. A young team who wasn’t supposed to be in the playoffs, let alone a second game in the playoffs had some factor here.  10. KC had a pretty good team   my concern from that game would be how poorly our run game was going forward. Kelly better play better than he did this season or I don’t see a 15 million/yr contract coming his way in Indy. I think with a healthy TY, the additions of DF and Cain and Paris and others should really boost that offense. An offense with TY, Paris, Doyle, EE and Mack, now that’s gonna be a tough group to match up with and defend. Run or pass, heck coach, idk what they are doing lol.    Gonna be fun to see this team evolve and have better back ups coming off the bench. I just hope we have enough beef in the middle to stop the run and I just hope that Kelly was hobbled in that KC game because it was one of his worst games that year. 
    • This again boils down to you hanging on to 'this is how it's always been done.' And you don't get that I don't care about that rationale. I think it can be done better. Which is why, in my first post in this thread, I said "to me, it's a no brainer." To me. It should be obvious that this is my stated preference, not me saying that teams that don't do it this way are stupid.   There should be nothing more that I have to say about that, except you continue to rely on that appeal to authority, and I'm telling you that 'how it's always been done' isn't legitimate reason for not examining potential alternatives. Not just in this area, but in everything.      You're missing an important detail, and I think it's because you've put my argument in a box and are unwilling to actually examine it on its merits.   As I said initially, and have said since, my argument is to make this change six months sooner, not six months later. "Imagine if we had fired Grigson in June 2016 instead of January 2017." Did you miss that part, again? What about "if the Texans had waited until January 2020 to fire Gaine..."?    I want him in asap. You want him asap, but not until January.   My statement about it being just one draft is referencing the worst case scenario, which is 'we just blew a draft cycle by letting a lame duck GM stay,' to which I say 'get over it, I'm okay with that if that's what it takes to get the guy I want in the building, with the staff he wants.' And that's where my argument about it potentially being easier to interview candidates in the down season after the draft is critical. The Jets wanted Joe Douglas; he evidently didn't want to entertain a move during draft season, but jumped at it in May/June. (There's the matter of moving his family during the school year, etc.) In theory, this approach could make it easier to interview good candidates. Whether you agree with that or not, whether it's important to you or not, this is mostly an aside. As I said, this was my response to the alarmist reaction of 'they just blew a draft!' Which I think is overstated, especially in the Texans' case.     Not at all. Again, if Ballard started in June 2016, he theoretically could have changed coaches a year sooner.      This is a hindsight fallacy. Go back to the Texans wanting to hire Caserio. I'm not arguing that he's going to be a great GM, I'm arguing that he's the guy they want to hire, and he's available in June. Same for the Jets and Douglas. The Chiefs and Veach.    We know that every person hired doesn't succeed. I never argued that they do. That's true of whoever you rush to hire in January. The point is that there is always a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose. I won't be retracting that, I firmly believe it, and I said it when the Colts were interviewing coaches in 2012, when they interviewed GMs in 2017, and when they interviewed coaches in 2018. You choosing to reject that is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. There are always qualified candidates. Choosing the right one is a different story.   And again, if there's one guy you really, desperately want, why wait until January to get him?     You could give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that if I'm saying it, I mean it. Especially this far into the discussion...    And going back to what I said earlier, this is and always has been my opinion. I'm not offering studies and conclusive evidence to support this opinion because it's a personal preference, it's what I think would be best (although I have offered evidence and rationale to support my opinion, you've just chosen to reject, for reasons I don't agree with).    I'm okay with the disagreement. What I find personally off-putting is the insistence that, because you don't understand my angle, it means I either haven't actually thought it through, or I don't actually believe it. As I said earlier, I understand that general consensus disagrees with my viewpoint, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to conform. The fact that I'm presenting an argument in earnest should be enough.
    • I'm an Iowa fan but I'd kind of like to see Michigan win that game so that it can maybe move back towards the appearance of a real rivalry.     That is unless an Ohio State victory would somehow help Iowa, in that situation I would root for the Buckeyes. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...