Preview for Monday Night

by guppy Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:35 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by ~Sheila~ Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:49 pm

guppy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

We shall see!!

by guppy Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:18 am

~Sheila~ wrote:
guppy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
We shall see!!

100-0. Pats. lol

by George1963 Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:00 am

100-0. Pats. lol

Penalty yards maybe.
"Keep Pounding".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by guppy Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:38 am

George1963 wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by ~Sheila~ Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:37 pm

Oh sorry about the Patriots, Guppy.
I feel some kind of penalty should have been called on the last play of the game. :/

by guppy Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:29 am

~Sheila~ wrote:Oh sorry about the Patriots, Guppy.
I feel some kind of penalty should have been called on the last play of the game. :/

]b]So do millions of other people who watch football regularly. Its called "face guarding". Face guarding without contact is not a penalty. When there is contact with the face guarding, that is when face guarding becomes pass interference. That's why the flag was thrown immediately by the Back Judge. Kuechly had his arms wrapped around Gronk, thus the contact. Why the flag was then picked up was an absolute travesty. Should have been First and Goal on the 1 yard line for one untimied down because time ran out. Maybe the Pats punch it in for the win; maybe Carolina stops them and they win. We'll never know.

I know this. If the situation was reversed, and it was their guy who had a Patriot defender with his arms wrapped around him and not looking back at the ball, 100% of Panther fans, or 100% of fans of any other team for that matter, would be calling pass interference on that play.

But like its been said many times, sometimes you get the calls, sometimes you don't. Oh well, shit happens. However, it will be interesting to see if the league comes out with a statement or explanation, and what it will be.

Its too bad it ended that way, because it was a great game overall. Very competitive from start to finish. Its just unfortunate that had to happen. There were too many good performances that won't get talked about because all the talk will be about the last play. Congrats to the Panthres and to Cam. I actually feel happy for him. I like him.

Cam Newton took a big step forward. This was a great resume builder for him. A QB who can scramble and run like that gives a team an edge that probably meant the difference in the game. [/b]

by George1963 Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:01 am

So do millions of other people who watch football regularly. Its called "face guarding". Face guarding without contact is not a penalty. When there is contact with the face guarding, that is when face guarding becomes pass interference. That's why the flag was thrown immediately by the Back Judge. Kuechly had his arms wrapped around Gronk, thus the contact. Why the flag was then picked up was an absolute travesty.

If by travesty you mean that the ball was uncatchable, good call. Unless Gronk is some kind of physics defying, anti-matter being who can instantaneously change direction , there's no way he was getting to where Lester caught that badly underthrown pass. Even if Luke wasn't there.
Sorry.
Great game though.

Congrats to the Panthres

It almost makes we wish I really was a Panthers fan. They're fun to watch and great to watch in person. Great "Game day experience" as the NFL marketers say.

and to Cam. I actually feel happy for him. I like him.

He likes you too Guppy. He likes you too.

by guppy Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:14 pm

George1963 wrote:So do millions of other people who watch football regularly. Its called "face guarding". Face guarding without contact is not a penalty. When there is contact with the face guarding, that is when face guarding becomes pass interference. That's why the flag was thrown immediately by the Back Judge. Kuechly had his arms wrapped around Gronk, thus the contact. Why the flag was then picked up was an absolute travesty.

If by travesty you mean that the ball was uncatchable, good call. Unless Gronk is some kind of physics defying, anti-matter being who can instantaneously change direction , there's no way he was getting to where Lester caught that badly underthrown pass. Even if Luke wasn't there.
Sorry.
Great game though.

Congrats to the Panthres

It almost makes we wish I really was a Panthers fan. They're fun to watch and great to watch in person. Great "Game day experience" as the NFL marketers say.

and to Cam. I actually feel happy for him. I like him.

He likes you too Guppy. He likes you too.

We can debate the call/play all you want. I think it was BS. The start of the PI happened in the middle of the end zone, not the back of it when Gronk was forced several steps back there by the bear hug, and it happened at the moment when the ball was leaving Brady's hand. Gronk was prevented from competing for the ball. Bad call.

But in the end it doesn't matter. This loss really does not upset me at all. What is more important is how they played. Did Brady look good? Yes. Did Gronk look good? Yes. Did Amendola look good? Yes. Did the O-Line play well and keep TB upright/ Somewhat. Better days are coming, and that is what is more important. The defense will have to hang in there. NE will be a tough out in the playoffs. That is what is more important than this one game against a non-conference foe in their own stadium.

The seeds of this loss were sown in the first half when Ridley fumbled. That changed the half. If he didn't fumble, they would have goine in and made it 7-7. Instead, Carolina gets that ball and goes down and makes it 10-0. You just can't have that fumble. It created a situation where it took too much energy and too much time to come back. I'm realizing morre and more in today's NFL, each mistake is huge and can be game changing - even when it happens in the first half.

by George1963 Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:47 pm

Gronkowski started getting pushed in the middle of the end zone and ended up at the back which was the direction he was going anyway. Looking like, to me anyway, he wasn't even aware of where the ball was.
You're right though. Ridley fumble was more important than that. Passing on third and one inside the ten after running the ball all the way down the field was big. And strange. Going 3 for 11 on third down, including Newton running for four, was big. Stupid personal fouls were big.
Brady looked good. Gronkowski looked OK. A lot of the rest of them, coaches included, looked like.....I'm not sure what. Not very good.

by guppy Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:23 pm

George1963 wrote:Gronkowski started getting pushed in the middle of the end zone and ended up at the back which was the direction he was going anyway. Looking like, to me anyway, he wasn't even aware of where the ball was.
You're right though. Ridley fumble was more important than that. Passing on third and one inside the ten after running the ball all the way down the field was big. And strange. Going 3 for 11 on third down, including Newton running for four, was big. Stupid personal fouls were big.
Brady looked good. Gronkowski looked OK. A lot of the rest of them, coaches included, looked like.....I'm not sure what. Not very good.

Gruden, Dilfer and Steve Young all thought it was a bad non call. Pretty much most people do. Even the haters I am reading on blogs are saying things like, "Haha how do you likie it Pats now that its happened to you." In other words, even the Pats haters are saying the Pats got the short end on that one. Makes no difference in the big picture. Just beat Satan Manning next Sunday and I'll be happy. Wouldn't it be ironic if this NE-Denver game finally comes, and Amendola is on the field, and Welker is not?

Newton's running was big. Just a killer. Talib's stupid personal foul was big. I have no clue what he was doing because he hasn't done something likie that all year. Why now I said to myself? Mankins' 15 yarder was big, but I think they overcame that and got a first down anyway. Still drove me crazy. I agree that stupid penalties were really a big factor. Just can't have those. Hope they get that fixed before Sunday.

When Cam takes off, nobody on the Pats front seven can track him down. So what do you do if you are a D Coordinator? Converting those third and longs by running were huge.

Still, overall, a great game.

by guppy Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:51 pm

If by travesty you mean that the ball was uncatchable, good call. Unless Gronk is some kind of physics defying, anti-matter being who can instantaneously change direction , there's no way he was getting to where Lester caught that badly underthrown pass. Even if Luke wasn't there.
[color=#333366]

[b]Not to dwell on the call, because I really don't want to [Tom Brady told me to "move on"]; BUT, since you brought physics into the "uncatchability" part of this, I suggest for your viewing pleasure that you watch this ESPN Sports Science video.

Hey, you were the one that brought science into it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by George1963 Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:56 am

guppy wrote:If by travesty you mean that the ball was uncatchable, good call. Unless Gronk is some kind of physics defying, anti-matter being who can instantaneously change direction , there's no way he was getting to where Lester caught that badly underthrown pass. Even if Luke wasn't there.

[b]Not to dwell on the call, because I really don't want to [Tom Brady told me to "move on"]; BUT, since you brought physics into the "uncatchability" part of this, I suggest for your viewing pleasure that you watch this ESPN Sports Science video.

Hey, you were the one that brought science into it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I always go to ESPN for my science.
A guy going 16mph can stop in 1/2 a second? Average speed going from 16mph to 0mph is of course 8 mph.
8mph is 11.733fps.
11.733fps*.5s is 5.8667 feet.
Rob Gronkowski can go from at or near full speed to a full stop in about 1 stride.
OK

by guppy Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:52 pm

George1963 wrote:
guppy wrote:If by travesty you mean that the ball was uncatchable, good call. Unless Gronk is some kind of physics defying, anti-matter being who can instantaneously change direction , there's no way he was getting to where Lester caught that badly underthrown pass. Even if Luke wasn't there.

[b]Not to dwell on the call, because I really don't want to [Tom Brady told me to "move on"]; BUT, since you brought physics into the "uncatchability" part of this, I suggest for your viewing pleasure that you watch this ESPN Sports Science video.

Hey, you were the one that brought science into it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I always go to ESPN for my science.
A guy going 16mph can stop in 1/2 a second? Average speed going from 16mph to 0mph is of course 8 mph.
8mph is 11.733fps.
11.733fps*.5s is 5.8667 feet.
Rob Gronkowski can go from at or near full speed to a full stop in about 1 stride.
OK

Let me ask you this. How many times have you seen a ball ruled "uncatchable" when it is a ball still ih the field of play, and not a ball sailing over the receiver's head either to the sideline out of bounds, or over the back of the endzone out of bounds? The ball is ruled "uncatchable" still in the field of play, AND there is zero doubt that there was pass interference, and the flag was thrown. But then the flag was picked up. THEN, the refs gave no explanation, and never used the word "uncatchable" when the penalty was waived off.

We see ALL THOSE THINGS on one play on a regular basis, right?

OK.

How's this for science? Listening to WFAN New York online, where Patriot hatred runs rampant, EVERY host said the Pats got jobbed. They shed no tears about it, but where honest enough to ackowledge that and express that opinion. Boomer Esiason said it. and Terry Bradshaw said it when he came on as a guest. WFAN New York sports radio = science. LOL.

More science. Mike Pereira, former VP of Officiating said, "Since the flag was thrown, they should have stayed with the call. There was clear contact before the ball was intercepted."

I agree with Stephen A. Smith's main point. It was just "sad" that such a great game had to end like that. My main take away from the game is not the L, but the fact that I was encouraged by how the Pats offense was able to move the ball on either the best or the second best defense in the league. That was the most positive aspect to me.

by guppy Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:09 pm

I'm going to be watching every game for the rest of the year so that I can take note of how many times there is clear cut, no nonsense, no doubt about it, pass interference, and the flag is thrown, but then the flag is picked up because the guy who threw the flag is overruled by another guy who says that the ball was "uncatchable", and the pass is still in the field of play, and not sailing over the receiver's head out of bounds, either to a sideline or out of the back of the endzone.

Lets see how many times this happens. You know, because the new defensive technique now is bear hug and maul the receiver and ride him away from the incoming ball, and if you ride him away far enough from the ball, they will call the ball "uncatchable", and your mauling magically doesn't matter anymore, and in effect, is no mauling at all. That's the way to get away with it. Just move the receiver far enough away from the incoming pass, and voila, "uncatchable".

Its brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

by George1963 Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:20 pm

We just disagree is all.
You believe that, had Kuechly not braced him, Gronk could have stopped on a dime and instantly gone 10 or 12 feet in the opposite direction, through Luke and Lester, and made a play on that ball.
I believe that things that are clearly impossible don't happen much.
Just a friendly difference of opinion.

by guppy Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:37 am

George1963 wrote:We just disagree is all.
You believe that, had Kuechly not braced him, Gronk could have stopped on a dime and instantly gone 10 or 12 feet in the opposite direction, through Luke and Lester, and made a play on that ball.
I believe that things that are clearly impossible don't happen much.
Just a friendly difference of opinion.

Of course.

I don't agree with your "10 to12 feet" part though. "Braced"? That's not the word I would choose first.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The NFL head of officiating in his effort to stick up for his referee crew even called it a "tight judgment call". I bet its very unlikely we'll ever see something similar.

One final question though. What about the part of no explanation, and the refs just running off the field? Do you see anything wrong with that?

And what about BB's response to the question about "Coach did you ask for or get an explanation?" And BB's response was, "No, but the last time I tried to get an explanation at the end of a game, it was the wrong thing to do. So...." (referring to the Baltimore playoff game, and I take that to mean BB giving a little jab to the league.)

Finally, I think we are in for much more debate in these games over the meaning of the word "uncatchable". As you probably know, it is not defined in the NFL Rulebook. The rule only says there shall be no pass interference if the ball is "clearly" uncatchable. What does "clearly uncatchable" mean? "Clearly" can mean different things to different people.

by Rick Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:47 am

One final question though. What about the part of no explanation, and the refs just running off the field? Do you see anything wrong with that?

They're not required to. It would have been nice though.

by ~Sheila~ Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:58 am

Rick wrote:
One final question though. What about the part of no explanation, and the refs just running off the field? Do you see anything wrong with that?

They're not required to. It would have been nice though.

It certainly would have been.

by guppy Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:34 pm

Just move the receiver far enough away from the incoming pass, and voila, "uncatchable".

Its brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

They are going to have amend the rulebook to further define what "clearly" "uncatchable" means. And I think as part of that, they need to put something in there that if the ball is "uncatchable", and the reason it is deemed "uncatchable" is because the defender restricted the receiver from being in the close vicinity to the ball as it comes towards him, then it is still pass interference, and that situation constitutes an exception to the rule that pass interference is waived off when the ball is "clearly uncatchable">

by George1963 Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:22 pm

guppy wrote:Just move the receiver far enough away from the incoming pass, and voila, "uncatchable".

Its brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

They are going to have amend the rulebook to further define what "clearly" "uncatchable" means. And I think as part of that, they need to put something in there that if the ball is "uncatchable", and the reason it is deemed "uncatchable" is because the defender restricted the receiver from being in the close vicinity to the ball as it comes towards him, then it is still pass interference, and that situation constitutes an exception to the rule that pass interference is waived off when the ball is "clearly uncatchable">

For someone who doesn't whine about calls, you're sure whining a lot about this call. Look at it this way; even if you think that was the worst call in history, if the last play of every Pats game this year had been called correctly, they would have had one play from the one the other night to try to avoid being 6-4.

by George1963 Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:27 pm

Rick wrote:
One final question though. What about the part of no explanation, and the refs just running off the field? Do you see anything wrong with that?

They're not required to. It would have been nice though.

Good to see you finally made it. Guppy needs the help.
Yea, it was weird. They ran off like they'd made a call against the home team in a Brazilian soccer match.

by guppy Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:45 pm

For someone who doesn't whine about calls, you're sure whining a lot about this call.

I'm not whining. I just like to argue sometimes. What else am I going to do since I can't suit up for the games, and I have you here who will NEVER take the Patriots slant on anything? lol.

How about the high hit on Matt Ryan Thursday night? No flag. Looked just like the hit on Drew Brees that drew a flag that cost San Fran the game didn't it? Here's my point on the Brees call. First of all, I think the hit was "high" on Brees only because he is so short to begin with. But what has been the tone of the discussion regarding that call? Is the tone of the discussion personal about Drew Brees? In other words, "Oh, for crissakes, that mutha fluking Brees gets all the calls. The league goes out of its way to pamper and protect HIM and give special favoritism to HIM that others don't get." Or is the discussion about the play itself, and how QBs in general are protected? I say the discussion is about how QBs in general are protected. It is not personal about Brees.

Now, change the discussion. Lets say the play was exactly the same, but it was Tom Brady, instead of Drew Brees that got the flag. Oh My God, can you imagine the outcry from coast to coast? The discussion would not be about protecting QBs in general. It would all be personal -- about Tom Brady. "The league gives Brady any call when you just breathe on him. You can't touch Tom Brady, etc.. Blah, Blah, Blah. There is such a different standard, and its based all on emotion and bias, not facts, and it turns my stomach. Go ahead, tell me that if you switch Brady for Brees on that same play that the tone of the discussion wouldn't be about Brady personally, rather it would be all about the play itself as it pertains to all QBs. I'd love to hear your take on that.

In fact, look up how many roughing the passer calls Tom Brady gets compared to all other QBs. From the way these haters talk you would think he gets three times as many as the next guy in second place. However, the true facts are that the number of personal fouls calls he gets places him right in the middle of the pack of all NFL QBs. He gets the average number, but all I read about from dumbass fans is that Brady gets favoritism, favoritism, favoritism. Favoritism? What complete and utter GARBAGE.

by guppy Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:29 pm

George1963 wrote:
Good to see you finally made it. Guppy needs the help.

Its nice to have some help. But how much help does one really need when one has a "higher power" working on his side?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Rick Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:45 pm

guppy wrote:
George1963 wrote:We just disagree is all.
You believe that, had Kuechly not braced him, Gronk could have stopped on a dime and instantly gone 10 or 12 feet in the opposite direction, through Luke and Lester, and made a play on that ball.
I believe that things that are clearly impossible don't happen much.
Just a friendly difference of opinion.
Of course.

I don't agree with your "10 to12 feet" part though. "Braced"? That's not the word I would choose first.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The NFL head of officiating in his effort to stick up for his referee crew even called it a "tight judgment call". I bet its very unlikely we'll ever see something similar.

One final question though. What about the part of no explanation, and the refs just running off the field? Do you see anything wrong with that?

And what about BB's response to the question about "Coach did you ask for or get an explanation?" And BB's response was, "No, but the last time I tried to get an explanation at the end of a game, it was the wrong thing to do. So...." (referring to the Baltimore playoff game, and I take that to mean BB giving a little jab to the league.)

Finally, I think we are in for much more debate in these games over the meaning of the word "uncatchable". As you probably know, it is not defined in the NFL Rulebook. The rule only says there shall be no pass interference if the ball is "clearly" uncatchable. What does "clearly uncatchable" mean? "Clearly" can mean different things to different people.

I just noted something that turned my stomach. Look at Amendola.

by Sponsored content

Preview for Monday Night

Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night

Re: Preview for Monday Night