Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

NFL Thread

TheGongOfDoom

By TheGongOfDoom
in Sports

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mojoween

    3153

  • Carey

    2315

  • merylinkid

    1594

  • twoods

    977

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

mojoween
mojoween

Cancelling Directv, throwing out season tickets and burning jerseys because of ANTHEM PROTESTS and yet supporting teams with domestic abusers, murderers/accidental killers and drug abusers is the DUMB

DrSpaceman73
DrSpaceman73

I believe it was a surface pro he threw, not an iPad.  Surface pros don't weigh as much.  And probably his best throw all night.  ...........             T

twoods
twoods

Why don't they close down the concession stands and bathrooms during the anthem so everyone is forced to stand up? Better yet, why doesn't every armchair asshole stand up at home during the anthem ins

Posted Images

mojoween

mojoween

I posted this on Facebook on 9/24/13 and for the life of me I cannot figure out who Ted is (the top part was my thought, the second is something I read somewhere, most likely Grantland).

"Suck for Luck?"  Funny.  "Riggin' for Wiggins?"  Not bad.  But now it's gone TOO FAR...

"Translation: Thanks to that trade, the Browns are officially in Drowney for Clowney AND Play Dead for Ted mode."

xaxat

xaxat

(edited)

ESPN replayed the Fail Mary game earlier this year (when they were desperate for content). At first, I was wondering why they were airing it, and then realized it was that game. 

One thing I remember thinking when I watched it live was that that new kid at QB for the Seahawks didn't look that good. No wonder teams passed on him in the first couple rounds.

2 hours ago, mojoween said:

I mean, those officials are signaling TWO DIFFERENT CALLS.

And then they had to call the teams back to the field for the extra point! Packers' special teamers were running out of the tunnel and just randomly grabbing helmets off the equipment cart so they could get the thing over as quickly as possible. 

Edited by xaxat
merylinkid

merylinkid

20 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Which probably would never have happened but for the officials lockout, and likely was the chief catalyst for ending it.

Because the regular officials never blow a call?    I mean everyone was screaming about that play and how the replacement refs blew it.   But we just had a year of making PI reviewable because the regular refs blew that call so badly in the Saints' playoff game.

  • Love 3
meowmommy

meowmommy

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

Because the regular officials never blow a call?    I mean everyone was screaming about that play and how the replacement refs blew it.   But we just had a year of making PI reviewable because the regular refs blew that call so badly in the Saints' playoff game.

Well, I'm not the one who made the decision to end the stalemate with the refs, but IIRC, this was basically the last straw, even for the cheapskate owners/league.  There had been one crappy call after another in the first few weeks of the season and the Fail Mary, on national television, was a bridge too far.

Although it was quite funny how fans cheered and applauded the regular refs when they came back...until the first blown call.  Then they went back to being the usual hated zebras who were obviously in the tank for the other team.

  • Love 4
Johannah

Johannah

22 minutes ago, Carey said:

IIRC, the night before, New England fell victim to a bad call by the replacement refs.  It was a foregone conclusion that the regular refs would be coming back.  Those awful calls took away wins from two of the best QB's at the time in addition to the best coach in the sports history at the time (and currently, and maybe going forward!)

Are you being sarcastic that they brought back the regular refs because favorites were affected?  If you're being serious, then I have to say, that as frustrating as it is to have an untimely bad call, and, yes, I would complain, too, but you generally don't lose a game based on one referee call.  Maybe it was the dropped pass, bad route run, missed tackle or wrong play call earlier in that same game.  I think a bad call or bad gameplay at the end of a game are sometimes overblamed.  The first 3 quarters have to have some impact on the game.  Not that I wasn't totally pissed that Atlanta had apparently never heard of an onside kick.

Carey

Carey

40 minutes ago, Johann said:

Are you being sarcastic that they brought back the regular refs because favorites were affected?  If you're being serious, then I have to say, that as frustrating as it is to have an untimely bad call, and, yes, I would complain, too, but you generally don't lose a game based on one referee call.  Maybe it was the dropped pass, bad route run, missed tackle or wrong play call earlier in that same game.  I think a bad call or bad gameplay at the end of a game are sometimes overblamed.  The first 3 quarters have to have some impact on the game.  Not that I wasn't totally pissed that Atlanta had apparently never heard of an onside kick.

As much as I'm being sarcastic, I am serious.  In other words, it's a combination of both.  It could be a coincidence, but based on the past (and the future), I think it's fair for people to question the timing of some decisions.  For example, they updated the rules protecting QBs whenever Brady went down Season 89, Week 1 (2008 season).  It was rather unnecessary, but it was legal and fair enough at the time.  Three seasons earlier, Carson Palmer suffered an even worse injury in a much, more meaningful game.  That was also legal at the time, but if that happened today, it would've been much more blatant than what Pollard did with Kansas City against New England.  Nothing changed in 2005-2006.  To be fair, New England has struggled against Baltimore, a team that has been known to mess with other teams and fool them with several trick plays.  As soon as New England did that at a much higher level against Baltimore a couple seasons after their demise in 2012, the NFL changed the rules at their expense.

 

There is favoritism amongst teams in all sports, Johann.  It isn't really blatant, but if it's borderline, or if the star of a league suffers, then that league will do anything it takes to prevent that from happening again.  

 

That being said, I do agree about the end of games and how a bad call is more of an excuse and less of a reason why a team losses a game they had won.  In fact, I'm a bid time supporter of that.  I've said in the past that teams need to blow out other teams (if not separate themselves) to secure victory.  I have had backlash with that due to keeping things competitive for maximum interest, but it's no crime to win by (at least) twice the spread.  Who wants to have a game come down to something unusual?

 

Despite all of that, the end of that Green Bay & Seattle game was just not good.  They would've changed it regardless.  New England blew a two possession lead in 2012, but Seattle was actually dominating Rodgers and company.  Both teams were playing great where it was anyone's game (not much offense). 

As for Atlanta?  They might be playing for Trevor Lawrence, but it's a matter of when, not if, in terms of Danny Quinn's survival

  • Love 2
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

(edited)
1 hour ago, Johann said:

Are you being sarcastic that they brought back the regular refs because favorites were affected?

It wasn't exactly that favorites* were affected, IMO, even though there is definitely favoritism in the game.

And it wasn't because the refs didn't call OPI on Tate even though he clearly pushed off a GB defender.  They never call that, especially not during a hail Mary attempt. 

And it wasn't because the refs made two different calls.  That happens in a game.  They usually defer to the ref with the best on field angle or whatever will get them a review.  (So if it's between a TD and an incomplete, the tend to err on the TD sound to double check).  Both calls would have gotten a booth review at that point.

I think it's because it was a high profile game (that also happened to involve popular teams/players) and because they got the chance to review their call and doubled down.  I think it would have been one thing if they made a bad call, like holding, but wouldn't be able to review it.  It sucks.  People would complain but it wouldn't have been famous eight years later.  It's that they DID get a chance to review the play from multiple angles and still came to the same conclusion when very few people would put forth a good faith argument that it was Tate with possession. 

I think the only two people who have ever made that claim were the ref (who won't stop talking about it) and Golden Tate.  Even Wilson was something like "well I trust my receiver and if he says he did.....etc."

And yes, while I also agree that one bad call shouldn't be your excuse, the NFL also doesn't want to give the impression that the last second doesn't matter. 

Edited by Irlandesa
  • Love 2
Johannah

Johannah

41 minutes ago, Carey said:

As much as I'm being sarcastic, I am serious.  In other words, it's a combination of both.  It could be a coincidence, but based on the past (and the future), I think it's fair for people to question the timing of some decisions.  For example, they updated the rules protecting QBs whenever Brady went down Season 89, Week 1 (2008 season).  It was rather unnecessary, but it was legal and fair enough at the time.  Three seasons earlier, Carson Palmer suffered an even worse injury in a much, more meaningful game.  That was also legal at the time, but if that happened today, it would've been much more blatant than what Pollard did with Kansas City against New England.  Nothing changed in 2005-2006.  To be fair, New England has struggled against Baltimore, a team that has been known to mess with other teams and fool them with several trick plays.  As soon as New England did that at a much higher level against Baltimore a couple seasons after their demise in 2012, the NFL changed the rules at their expense.

 

There is favoritism amongst teams in all sports, Johann.  It isn't really blatant, but if it's borderline, or if the star of a league suffers, then that league will do anything it takes to prevent that from happening again.  

 

That being said, I do agree about the end of games and how a bad call is more of an excuse and less of a reason why a team losses a game they had won.  In fact, I'm a bid time supporter of that.  I've said in the past that teams need to blow out other teams (if not separate themselves) to secure victory.  I have had backlash with that due to keeping things competitive for maximum interest, but it's no crime to win by (at least) twice the spread.  Who wants to have a game come down to something unusual?

 

Despite all of that, the end of that Green Bay & Seattle game was just not good.  They would've changed it regardless.  New England blew a two possession lead in 2012, but Seattle was actually dominating Rodgers and company.  Both teams were playing great where it was anyone's game (not much offense). 

As for Atlanta?  They might be playing for Trevor Lawrence, but it's a matter of when, not if, in terms of Danny Quinn's survival

Thanks for responding.  I agree that there are favorites when it comes to referees and rule changes.  I wasn't clear.  My issue was with blaming a loss on one call by a ref, which, I think makes us in agreement.

merylinkid

merylinkid

11 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

the NFL also doesn't want to give the impression that the last second doesn't matter. 

As a Cowboys fan -- boy oh boy, do those last seconds matter.    I think it took a good hour for my heart to start beating last week.

to me, bad calls are as much a part of the game as weather, injuries and the turf.    You get what you get.   You still gotta play the game.  

  • Love 4
Fukui San

Fukui San

15 hours ago, Carey said:

  For example, they updated the rules protecting QBs whenever Brady went down Season 89, Week 1 (2008 season).  It was rather unnecessary, but it was legal and fair enough at the time.  Three seasons earlier, Carson Palmer suffered an even worse injury in a much, more meaningful game.  That was also legal at the time, but if that happened today, it would've been much more blatant than what Pollard did with Kansas City against New England.  Nothing changed in 2005-2006

They changed the roughing the passer rules after both the Carson Palmer hit and the Tom Brady hit. 

2006: Low hits on the quarterback are prohibited when a rushing defender has an opportunity to avoid such contact.

“Preventing guys from being around your feet is a big one for longevity.”

2009: Clarified rule regarding low hits on passers: A defender cannot initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the passer in the knee area or below, even if he is being contacted by another player.

This is known as the “Brady rule,” because it was implemented after Brady was knocked out for the entire 2008 season by the play below:

Bastet

Bastet

By the time I got up, made my Bloody Mary, and turned on the TV, the Rams were down 28-3 to the Bills (I hate when one of my teams plays at 10:00 a.m.). 

That was such a fun comeback … right up until the Rams defense gave up the first down on 3rd and 22.  Then the failure to take Allen down for a big loss?  Thank goodness he was stupid enough to grab a face mask.  Those final few minutes were rough on my blood pressure, especially that pass interference call.  Fuck.  But if you let yourself get down by 25 points, you set yourself up to lose. 

Now we've switched to Chicago at Atlanta, so we'll see if the Falcons blow another lead.

Bastet

Bastet

According to Ian Rapoport, the five coaches fined for not wearing masks correctly last week have appealed, and there will be a hearing later this week.

I'm interested to hear on what grounds, since it's clearly not "I had my mask on consistently and properly" -- they're on camera quite decidedly failing to follow protocol.  So I wonder if they're going to challenge the requirement itself (saying the communication equipment the league provides doesn't work adequately with masks, or that it's unnecessary given all the tests and isolation coming into the game, and players don't have to wear one)?

  • Love 2
twoods

twoods

(edited)

Yeah just take your medicine and pay your fine because there is video evidence you weren’t wearing your mask. Pete Carroll was the worst last week. Idiots.

Im not a Jets fan but I feel really bad for how many injuries they have. No wonder their offense is terrible, and then their D gets tired. I wonder how many games they will win this year.

Edited by twoods
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

6 minutes ago, xaxat said:

I know kickers are considered offensive players, but I'm not going to give the offense cheap points for something they had nothing to do with.

Aren't they considered special teams?  Special teams usually has players from both sides of the ball.  But if we lump the extra point in with the offense total after a score, I think it's fair the extra point is credited to the defense after a score as well.  No one talks about the offense scoring 18 unanswered points after 3 TDs in a row; they say 21 unanswered points.

 

  • Love 4

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...