xStonr
Kick Henry Jackassowski
Yes, I agree. The Eagles Defense had a terrible game but held on for the win.
NFL 2017-18 Thread
- Thread starter sunvalleylaw
- Start date
Yes, I agree. The Eagles Defense had a terrible game but held on for the win.
335clone
Living the dream
Mojo.
On the other hand, the Niners seem to be resurrected from the dead at the hands of Jimmy G. 3 consecutive wins after stinking up the first 3/4 of the season. I am floored how well that ragtag roster is rising to the occasion behind #10. Next year ought to be very interesting.
Danhedonia
Noted duckfat enthusiast
It is Bill Belichick Sunday. The Pats' win was an amazing tribute to Belichick's coaching (and Rob Gronkowski's will to compete). Then you saw why he held on to Garroppolo for so long -- Niners fans are going to be so, so glad they have him.
Lastly, you saw the huge difference between BB and Pete Carroll. I like the Seahawks, and really respect the passion of their fanbase. But I've always found Carroll 'an acquired taste,' and recently someone pointed out that where he goes, there is a pattern:
* rise from ashes, Pete infecting all with his enthusiasm
* win championship
* each subsequent year, top out a step lower (e.g., lose super bowl; lose NFCCG; lose divisional round ... )
* jump ship, leaving program in situation from which it takes years to recover (see: Southern California, University Of ...)
I fear Seahawks fans are going to have that ugly experience.
Contrast with Belichick, who has sustained that competitiveness for nearly two decades. Miraculous.
That said, the Pats played poorly (again), and were terribly fortunate to still have a chance at the end.
Lastly, you saw the huge difference between BB and Pete Carroll. I like the Seahawks, and really respect the passion of their fanbase. But I've always found Carroll 'an acquired taste,' and recently someone pointed out that where he goes, there is a pattern:
* rise from ashes, Pete infecting all with his enthusiasm
* win championship
* each subsequent year, top out a step lower (e.g., lose super bowl; lose NFCCG; lose divisional round ... )
* jump ship, leaving program in situation from which it takes years to recover (see: Southern California, University Of ...)
I fear Seahawks fans are going to have that ugly experience.
Contrast with Belichick, who has sustained that competitiveness for nearly two decades. Miraculous.
That said, the Pats played poorly (again), and were terribly fortunate to still have a chance at the end.
Jbird
Kick Henry Jackassowski
And the Steelers get robbed by the Lions rule.
Why is it a running back can lose control of the ball right on the goal line and get a TD for it, yet receivers have to hold on to the ball all the way over to the gatorade jug on the bench for it to be a complete pass?
That Steelers receiver made a 'football' move after catching the ball, so he should've been given the same consideration that a RB or QB stretching the ball into the endzone and losing it because it hit the ground. In other words, it should've been a TD. And if it's not, every RB and QB that extends the ball over the goal line, but loses the ball upon it hitting the ground, that should then be a fumble. You are holding players to two different standards, NFL
Why is it a running back can lose control of the ball right on the goal line and get a TD for it, yet receivers have to hold on to the ball all the way over to the gatorade jug on the bench for it to be a complete pass?
That Steelers receiver made a 'football' move after catching the ball, so he should've been given the same consideration that a RB or QB stretching the ball into the endzone and losing it because it hit the ground. In other words, it should've been a TD. And if it's not, every RB and QB that extends the ball over the goal line, but loses the ball upon it hitting the ground, that should then be a fumble. You are holding players to two different standards, NFL
Chad
Slender Hobbit
The fumble into and out of the end zone rule is pretty stupid too. How about, give the offense the ball back at the spot of the fumble. If he fumbled and it rolled out at the 2 inch mark, the Raiders would have maintained possession.
And the Steelers get robbed by the Lions rule.
Why is it a running back can lose control of the ball right on the goal line and get a TD for it, yet receivers have to hold on to the ball all the way over to the gatorade jug on the bench for it to be a complete pass?
That Steelers receiver made a 'football' move after catching the ball, so he should've been given the same consideration that a RB or QB stretching the ball into the endzone and losing it because it hit the ground. In other words, it should've been a TD. And if it's not, every RB and QB that extends the ball over the goal line, but loses the ball upon it hitting the ground, that should then be a fumble. You are holding players to two different standards, NFL
Because a receiver needs to possess the ball first. The rule is that one has to control the ball through the act of going to the ground. He clearly did not. You're conflating the rules for a ball carrier and those for a reception.
The "football move" language has been gone since last season, replaced with language that says the same thing, but less subjectively.
Jbird
Kick Henry Jackassowski
No I'm not. Max Kellerman agrees with me.
The guy caught the ball, as he is turning his knee hits the ground. Knee = body part (other than feet) being down, according to NFL rules. Body part (other than feet) being down = reception, according to NFL rules.
He THEN extendes the ball towards the end zone, and ball breaks plane of the goal line while he is in possession of the ball, and his knee is down. That is a TD by any stretch of the NFL rules.
Then, after that, AFTER the ball broke the plane of the goal line, he falls the rest of the way to the ground, the ground itself jarring the ball from his hands.
If it works for a ball carrier, which the receiver NOW IS, because his knee is on the ground, it should apply to everyone. Refs blew the call plain and simple. I'm not even a Steelers fan.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Put me down in favor for keeping the rule as is. Poor ball security near the goal line should not be rewarded.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
They should have not brought him back until next season. If the Pack were leading the division or only needed to win out to be in the playoffs, bring him back, but when you have to win out and other teams need to lose to get you in, shelf him and let him come back next season at full strength. Or if somehow you make the playoffs bring him back. He is that team, why risk him on a long shot to get in?
Chad
Slender Hobbit
On the flip side, letting a team drive the length of the field should also not be rewarded. The D did nothing on that drive and the ball gets handed to them by a rule. I don't think the goal line area should get special rules. That happens anywhere else on the field of play, Raiders ball.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
The defense forced a fumble. And the goal line area/end zone has numerous special rules that don't apply at the 40 yard line for example. It's a good rule...that unfortunately can occasionally benefit evil teams.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Totally wrong, no matter who agrees with you. You are arguing about things that aren't in the rulebook. A receiver has to maintain control throughout the act of hitting the ground, until then it's as if the ball is in the air. The ball made contact with the ground and came out when his upper body landed. His knee hitting the ground has nothing to do with it (other than establishing the play in bounds), you are quoting the rule for a ball carrier, which he wasn't.
Are there? That wasn't a catch on the 50 yard line, the goal line or the side line. The only rules relating to possession unique to the end zone are that the play is over when a ball in possession of a ball carrier breaks the plane, and a ball fumbled out of the end zone is a turnover/touchback. Maybe you could count safeties and the touchback rule in general, but that's not in play here.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
If you fumble a ball out of your own end zone, it's a safety.
If you fumble a ball out of your opponents endzone, it's a touchback.
This has been the rule in the NFL for 100 years. You have not presented a credible argument to change it.
You are technically correct. Since I haven't made any argument to change any rule, then I certainly couldn't be said to have made a credible argument to do so.
I see what happened, I hadn't noticed the conversation had shifted to the Raiders. I'm still not advocating a rule change.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
That is how I feel about the Seahawks. A lot of injuries to heal. And some significant changes, including getting a real front line that isn't cobbled together.