Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

289
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Q (not verified) :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:11pm

It isn't a wrong call when it is called by the definition that is in the rule book.

In the scheme of things does it matter whether Detroit ends with 3 wins instead of 4? DET is better off with a higher pick in the drat than 1 extra win

291
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by ASmitty (not verified) :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:15pm

Say that to a fan base that has won 2 wins in nearly forty games. That was the most atrocious missed call I have ever seen in a major sport, it was in line with the rule, but that just means the rule is ludicrous. Other than putting both feet and both knees and one hand in bounds, what was Johnson to do? A whole market has a reason to be alienated.

293
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by jayinalaska :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:21pm

Nope, sorry. That rule has been on the books for years. You can think the rule is bad, but you can't say it was a bad call. He went to the ground and dropped the ball. Incomplete. You should be mad at your receiver for being cavalier with the ball on a potentially game winning play.

297
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:26pm

He didn't drop the ball, though. Where did he drop the ball? Yes, he left the ball on the ground pretty much as soon as it hit the ground... but that's not a drop. It may have been insufficient to meet the "entire process" thing, but that's different from actually dropping the ball.

304
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by jayinalaska :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:31pm

"He left the ball on the ground." As far as the rule goes, that's a drop and the pass is incomplete. Is the rule stupid? Pretty much. Was the rule incorrectly applied? Absolutely not.

This gets called every week in the NFL. It just doesn't happen very often at the end of the game in the end zone where the completion means a go-ahead TD.

303
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by ASmitty (not verified) :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:31pm

Again, not MY receiver, just a football fan. He put a knee down with control, he put TWO knees down with control. He put two knees down AND his butt with control of the ball.

I didn't realize you had to get up and carry the ball to the referee to score points. The NFL cares more about the letter of the law that common sense, example 1,8098. Looking forward to Roethlisbergher in week 4.

353
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 5:51am

How many times don't we see an open receiver catch it in the endzone, and the moment he has it. He lets the ball fall on the ground and celebrates.
That is considered a catch.

371
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:05am

Key point being "open reciever." Wether we like it or not, there are diferent rukes for what constitutes a catch depending on wether the reciever is in the ground, in the air and being contacted or not. And that rules applies to any catch in any part of the field.

- Alvaro

296
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Steve Sandvik (not verified) :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:25pm

Excellent. Then maybe someone else can get the automatic national television appearance on Thanksgiving.

300
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by zlionsfan :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:28pm

I appreciate your outrage on behalf of people like me, but honestly, not only is it not a missed call, if it were, it wouldn't even be the worst missed call in Detroit in the last six months. (Google "Jim Joyce" for that one.)

He's supposed to get up and demonstrate possession, according to my understanding of the rule. It's stupid, yeah, but that's what the rule says. The refs can't simply overlook the rule even when they know it's dumb.

Sure, it would be nice to have won the game, but this wasn't the only reason they lost ... if the next pass had been caught, this one would have only been a footnote.

And maybe it takes a result like this to get the NFL to look at a rule like that. I mean, it's already come into play before and that didn't cause the rule to change. Maybe this will.

305
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:32pm

You're probably right; I haven't seen the text of the rule in question.

I'm still tempted to think that if this had been TO or Moss making the catch, it would have been a TD. Whether this is because of actual bias, or because those receivers would have held on and celebrated with the ball, is up to you to decide. ;)

315
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:58pm

I'm going to be in the minority here but a) I have absolutely NO problem with the rule as it is and b) the second I saw the replay I knew it wasn't a TD.

Regardless of wether it's in the end-zone or not, a reciever who is hit in the air as he's making a catch (as Johnson was), has to mantain posession all the way to the ground. Wether he let it go voluntarely or not. as he was falling down, the second the ball touched the ground, it poped out of his hand. This is, by definition of a rule we have seen enforced in the middle of hte field a thousand times (and where I ahve never heard even a single person complain about it before), not a catch.

Imagine that instead of coming down with the ball in one hand and it hitting the ground and popping out, he was coming down with control in BOTH hands and when he fell it hit him in the chest, instead of the ground, it bounced up (or he let it go, whichever you choose to call it) and then fell to the ground. Would anyone be saying it was a catch? And how is that any different fromw hat actually happened?

Now, if he didi have complete controll and simply let it go in celebration, that is in no way different than Jackson letting it go at the one instead of past the goal-line, or Plaxico spiking it after no one touched him down. Boneheaded play that gave away a score (or posession in the case of Plax. Don't rememebr if it was returned for a TD).

- Alvaro

317
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:04am

I have a problem with this one play because I think CJ demonstrated possession clearly, and controlled the ball to the ground. Then after that, he started to get up and put the ball down.

319
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:20am

I watched the play several times before posting and that is completely incorrect. It LOOKS that way because his hand was above the ball (suggesting to the human mind the intention of putting the ball down instead of the hand and ball falling to the ground), and he got up inmediately, but that was still part of the catch, and the ball popped out, wether he let it go or not.

For a test, look at it again, but try to imagine the hand is underneatht he ball instead of above it. Again, its the ground, pops out, no one is calling it a TD just because the hand was under it instead of above it. But it's the same thing.

As for him demonstrating controll, he has to posess controll of it THROUGHOUT the cath. I don't care if a reciever mock-burps the ball a-la endzone celebration while he's falling down with a defender wrapped around his waist, thus demonstratinghis absolute control and mastery over the ball. If then, as his hands with the ball hit the ground, it pops out, it's still not a catch becaus ehe didn't controll it throughout.

- Alvaro

321
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:28am

You may be right. I'm feeling awfully guilty as a Bears fan because it looked awfully catch-like at the time.

I think I don't like the fact the receiver has to control throughout. I feel like once he demonstrates control and is down, the play if over.

324
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:40am

OK, full disclosure: also a Bears fan, but I'd liek to think I'd be making the exact same argument if the play had been in Browns/Bucs.

My problem wiht people calling for a change of the rule is that it's based ENTIRELY on the fact that it happened on a game-defining play in the end-zone, and when they saw the play, they felt it was a catch because it loks like he just went up after the catch and threw away the ball in celebration AFTER THE CATCH. But that isn't what happened (as humans we attribute motives and sotrylines tot hings we see that may or just as easily, or even easier, may not have anything to do with reality). And then we try to argue things to fit what we think we saw and what should happen.

The thing is, this is the exact same rule that we see several times a game in the middle of the field, where it looks like a catch, but then the replay clearly shows that the ball pops out as he hits the ground. The fact that this was in the end-zone, plus the fact that the rest of his body hits first, plus the fact that the hand is above the ball instead of underneath it (I still mantain that had that been the case no one objective would be arguing it's a catch) is what makes people question and curse a rule that they had absolutely no problem with the rest of the game and probably did not have any problem with when they saw it in the later games either.

And that fact is why any talk of changing the rule is ridiculous. I think Rich Eisen put it best when he asked Deion something like "If you are going to change the rule, then you are going to eliminate the reciever having to mantain control of the ball througout the catch. Where do you draw the line? Or do you not require controll anymore?"

- Alvaro

327
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:56am

Okay. "Control". How often does a ball come out after a player is down? Fairly frequently, right? But the player is down, so it doesn't matter. At least, not when it's a question of a fumble. So why does this not also apply to catches? Because, honestly, I thought it did - I suspect most people thought it did, not having followed the intricacies of the NFL rulebook - and so at first I had no idea what was going on.

Calvin Johnson was clearly "down", in full possession of the ball: of course people thought it was and should be a touchdown. I'm willing to admit that the rule may have been correctly applied, but I believe the rule here is faulty. If he hadn't been down, and the ball came out, fine, incomplete. If the ball came out when he came down, fine, incomplete. But he was already down (twice, in fact: two feet first, then a funky bounce/jump/controlled fall/step and foot-knee-hand), both times in full possession of the ball, before he released the ball on the ground.

For comparison, if he had landed OOB, wouldn't it have been a TD since he was down in possession of the ball? Or did I misunderstand that, too? All I'm demanding is a universally-applied standard here, so we don't have cases like this which confuse everyone because separate rules apply.

329
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:59am

Actually, no. If he had landed OOB, the same rule would have applied.

331
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 1:19am

This has absolutely nothing to do with being down. And this is not an arcane rule that only referees know. This is a rule that I see applied every single week, but agian,s ince it's in the middle of the field, no one cares that much and they just accept the explanation.

I'll try to articulate how coming down with a ball for a catch works ANYWHERE ON THE FIELD.

If there is no contact before the player comes down, all he has to do is establish control somewhere along the catch. Hence, if he coms down with it, without anyone touching him while he was in the air, and the ball pops out, it's a catch and a fumble.

If there IS contact before the player comes down, he MUST control the bal THROUGHOUT the entire act of falling down. Hence, if he comes down with it, after being hit in the air, or with a defender around him, and the ball pops out, it's an incomplete pass. This is a ruling seen EVERY SINGLE GAME and that I'm sure people are fairly familiar with, even if not on a conscious level, because I ahve never seen it questioned before today.

Now, since the rule, which again, is applied to any catch attempt where there is contact in the air, states that the reciever must mantain control throughout the entire process of going to the ground, there is no "being down" until the player has completed his entire fall to the ground with posession of the ball. so the entire surface of his body except his one hand could have touched the field, before that one hand came down and hte ball popped out and it'd be entirely irrelevant.

I'm sure you have seen many a play where the reciever goes down, the ball comes loose and a defender picks it up, but the play is whistled dead and ruled incomplete instead (in fact I'm positive I saw that in one of the three games I watched today, and I'm also pretty certain you'll see it at least once in tomorrow's games). If the concept of being down as you want to apply it here (a knee or other non-foot body-part touched the ground, with a defender touching the player), applied to these very common plays, it would be ruled a catch at the spot where the player went to the ground. It's always ruled incomplete.

- Alvaro

347
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Big Johnson :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 3:16am

tuluse i know we dont agree on much but you said it perfectly, besides the "if" part.

"I feel like once he demonstrates control and is down, the play if over."

The rulebook states the receiver must maintain the catch to the ground. my interpretation is that once he would be considered down on a normal yardline thats when he is given a touchdown. i think i show correct interpretation here as well. but it seems like most people disagree with me and tuluse on this one. Not only do i think this is how it should be, but i feel like its how the rule states it.

372
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:10am

Actually I agree 100% that once he would be considered down on a normal yardline this when he should be given a TD. And that's what the rules state as well. The issue here is that had the exact same play happened int he middle of the field, it would have been ruled an incompletion there as well, thus complying with what we coth think should happen in the end-zone.

- Alvaro

352
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Marko :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 3:49am

I have no guilt over that play as a Bears fan. The rule is the rule and it was applied correctly. Like the Tuck Rule whenever it comes up, whether or not people like or understand the rule is irrelevant.

I remember a few years ago the Bears lost a game in large part because a similar apparent touchdown by Bernard Berrian was ruled an incomplete pass. He "caught" the ball in the end zone with both feet inbounds, went to the ground out of bounds and the ball came out. I think the game was against the Lions in Detroit. (If it wasn't, then it was in Minnesota; it was definitely a road game against a divisional opponent in a dome.)

I think the real fault lies with Calvin Johnson. He ruined a potentially great game-winning catch because, as demonstrated by his reaction and his comments after the game, he did not know the rule and was careless with the ball as a result. I think he easily would have been able to hold onto the ball if he knew the rule and knew what he had to do to make it a legal catch.

325
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:46am

Here's what happens: foot down, other foot down; takes left hand off the ball; mini-second jump, so he lands with left foot, knee, and hand down; with the left hand pushes himself up, plants the ball as he's pushing himself up. Here's the NFL video. Catch around 2 sec, slow-mo on the catch for the first time starts about 42 seconds. Re-watching - as a biased Lions fan, bear in mind - the ball plant looks as much like a "2nd football move" as any other spike. Would it have been smarter to hang onto the ball - which he clearly could have done - and remove all doubt? Sure. Should it have made any difference? No. Clearly a touchdown by any sane metric.

Further, I believe you're incorrect about the middle of the field call. When he let the ball go I believe the play would already have been blown dead because he was down - both feet, knee, on his back = with clear possession. The one possible problem, watching it again, is that he might not have been ruled "down by contact", since the only contact was in the air. I'm not entirely clear on that distinction.

Even the call was made correctly - which I'll admit for the sake of argument since the Schwartz did - it's still ridiculous that that wasn't a TD when a guy who falls OOB can catch a TD if he just gets his feet down. Until this game, I'd never heard of the process/2nd move rule in conjunction with a TD catch - I'd always assumed ball in end zone => receiver down -> TD. And he was down twice: first he got two feet down (in possession); then he had foot-knee-hand down (in possession). I'd argue that that's all a TD should take, especially when we compare with the rushing TD requirements (we've all seen the TD where the RB lost the ball on the play, but it stands because it "broke the plane", right?).

332
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 1:37am

A spike is not a football move. Ever (ok, excepting an intentional spike to stop the clock by the QB, but that's a very short forward pass). So yes, I would agree that the ball-plant is as much of a football move as any other spike, ie, none at all.

As for the middle of the call field, see my reply in post #331. There is no being down on a play where the reciever is touched in the air until he has finished his fall to the ground with control of the ball. Since he was still coming down, with his hand being the last part of his body still coming down from the momentum of the fall, he has to mantain posession of the ball as it hits the ground, which is exactly the moment it pops out.

Was it intentional on his part as part of going up? Could very well be. I would not doubt him for a second if he said so, but that's still no diferent than DeSean Jackson intentionally throwing the ball away before crossing the plane, or Plaxico Burress spiking the ball after no one had touched him down.

As for comparing it with a rushing TD, the requirements are actully pretty much the same. They must posses the ball as it finds itself in the end-zone. in the case of a RB, we have all seen plays where he fumbles the ball right at the goal-ine and the ball moves ahead with him but is not picked up by him or his team. The replay tries then to establish when the ball starts coming out. If it's before he crosses the plane, it is not a touchdown. The thing is, that, by definition, and equally on any part of the field, in order for a reciever who was hit in the air to catch the ball, he must mantain control throughout the entire process of going to the ground, he never actually had posession of the ball in the entire play, and it's impossible to score a TD without posessing the ball, isn't it?

Now, if you want to argue that a runner who leaps up into the end-zone has a TD, even if he's pushed back and comes down outside of the end-zone, the big difference is that he already posessed the ball when it crossed the plane, which the reciever did not. Otherwise we'd be arguing that a reciever who catches the ball in the air inside the planes that delineate the end-zone but comes down out of bounds should have scored a TD. But no one does because we all realize that if you come down with even one foot OOB, you did not actually make the catch, and we accept that. This is the same thing, which we also accept on eveyr other part of the field, and I still mantain we would have accepted here without question if the play was exactly the same, but his hand would have been underneath the ball when it touched the ground and popped out.

It's a sensible rule that no one has a problem with or even thinks about the multiple times game-day that it's applied, and I have abcolutely no desire to see it changed, just like no one had any desire to see it changed after watching it applied the other times it was this sunday.

- Alvaro

335
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Basilicus :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 1:51am

It's a stupid rule in this one instance, but on the whole it protects against more incompletions than it erases completions. So, like most rules, it will not be fair to what happened on the field 100% of the time. Is it fair to what happens much more often than 50% of the time? Absolutely.

Most receivers have the wherewithall to clutch the ball every time they go to the ground. It's a rule. You've got to follow it or risk having it called against you.

350
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Fion :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 3:36am

I think the only stupid thing on that play was Calvin Johnson celebrating himself instead of taking care to actually keep the ball in his hand on a potentially game-winning catch.

The rule is clear. The rule is good. I really wanted the Lions to win this game, and I blame Johnson.

373
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:11am

I couldn't agree more (except for the wanting the Lions to win part)

- Alvaro

338
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 1:58am

The "football move" language has been removed from the rule book as far as I'm aware.

I think most people (I know my own) problem with this non-catch. Is that it looks like CJ controls the ball all the way to the ground. Then he makes a "2nd act" move and that's when he loses it.

341
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 2:29am

What on Earth is a "2nd act move"?? A car chase? That's in the second act, right?

And as I have tried to get across before, he does not posess the ball until he stops falling. He does not stop falling until the ball hits the ground. That is EXACTLY when it pops out. Hence, he NEVER has posession of the ball.

As for the "football move" (or whatever it's called now) I only addressed it because you brought it up. What I thought was pretty clearly implied from the rest of the rule description was that it's a concept, by whatever name, that does not apply here.

The aforementioned name-changing move only applies when the reciever is coming down on his feet without having been touched in the air and, at that point, is hit by a defender. What happens then is that, if no move was made before the hit, the reciever is still considered to have been in the air at the time of the hit and thus he does not yet have posession of the ball, since the whole "must mantain control all the way to the ground" applies. If instead, he is hit after having made his move, he is already considered to have posession and is treated like any runner, and thus coughing up the ball would result in a fumble (or if this was happening in the end-zone, the hit came after the play was over due to it being a TD).

Since CJ was clearly hit in the air, the whole "move" thing does not apply, since it's already established that he has to mantain control throughout his entire fall.

- Alvaro

345
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 2:42am

He does not stop falling until the ball hits the ground.

That seems stupid because he caught the ball and landed on his ass. If he hadn't tried to turn at all, it would have been a clear catch right there. Catch, show clear possession, fall on ass, TD.

However, since he tried that fancy spinning move thing after all that, it gets taken away. It seems wrong.

With the words "2nd act," I'm just parroting what Mike Pereira said. It implies you've finished one act (catching the ball), and have then moved on to another act (spinning twisting motion). By removing the words "football move" it doesn't really matter what the moves/motions are. As long as they look like different "acts."

351
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Fion :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 3:43am

The ball hitting the ground has nothing to do with his state of falling. If the receiver is hit in the air, he is "coming to the ground" and must maintain possession of the ball throughout his fall. What Calvin Johnson did was, to use your example, catch, get hit, show clear possession, fall on ass and drop the ball. No catch.

The entire "second football act" discussion brought up by the announcers is completely irrelevant for the play in question, and Pereira said as much. It just serves to confuse everyone about why that was not ruled a touchdown.

360
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:28am

". If he hadn't tried to turn at all, it would have been a clear catch right there. Catch, show clear possession, fall on ass, TD.
"

Yeah, it would have, but thats not what happened. This is like saying "if wide receiver hadn't slid 3 yards and had the ball pop out, it would have been a catch".

You have to maintain control of the ball until you stop.

Calvin Johnson "caught" the ball in street parlance. According to the NFL rules though, it wasn't a catch.

349
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Marko :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 3:33am

I remember watching that play by Plax. If I recall correctly, it was his first catch in the NFL. It definitely was not returned for a TD.

294
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:23pm

As a Lions fan, the more wins the better - the draft system at present is backfiring because of the insane salaries top-of-first-round rookies are requiring. Bad teams don't have money to rebuild properly -> team stays bad -> bad team tries to rebuild with less money, if anything. See: St Louis, Oakland, Detroit, San Francisco. Of course, bad management has something to do with it, but at some point the money-drain of early picks means if you want to get better you really need to make that high pick pay off, and 1st round picks aren't that much more reliably productive than any other round.

(Yes, I'm slightly bitter about apparently wasting another QB pick. At least Stafford is good, but he keeps getting hurt!)

364
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by AlanSP :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:51am

Nope, not an incorrect call, but it's really a rule that should be changed because, like the tuck rule, it's stupid and counterintuitive. It's not quite as bad as the tuck rule because it doesn't reward bad play and punish good play, but it's still a manifestly dumb rule. It's fine to say, as the NFL did, that the rule was enforced correctly, since it was. But by insisting that it's actually not a stupid rule and that they have no intention of looking into changing it in the offseason, they're doing their fans a disservice.

For what it's worth, I've thought this was a dumb rule since long before today. A simpler and more intuitive rule would be that if a receiver has control of the ball, has both feet in bounds, and is in the end zone or would be down by contact, it's a catch and the play is over, regardless of what happens afterward. That is, if you have control of the ball and it's across the goal line, it's a TD. This is basically the same rule for running the ball, where if you dive and break the plane, it doesn't matter whether you hold onto the ball all the way to the ground.

374
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:15am

But then you would have a vastly diferent definition for a catch in the end-zone and on the resto of the field. And I think that's a very bad thing.

Also, as I have said before, this is not the same rule as running the ball. When a runner crosses the plane he already has established posession of the ball. The diference is that by the catch rules which apply to the entire field, the reciever has not yet established posession of the ball until he finishes coming down and mantains control of the ball. That's the key diference. In both running and recieving, the second you have posession of the ball inside the end-zone the play ends in a TD.

- Alvaro

376
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Mr Shush :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 3:32pm

If I had my way, I'd change the rule in the fashion suggested for the whole field, not just the endzone. I'd like to see tons of plays that are currently ruled as incompletions called catch-and-fumbles instead. More turnovers. More chaos. Less passing. Win.

377
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 4:19pm

I'm with you - this debacle just drive it home. Here's what I said:

"Further, while I understand the reasons for the process distinctions, I don't like them. If you land with the ball under control, and then you lose control, it's a fumble, no matter how far you've gone, half a step or five steps or fifty yards. I know that's not the way the rules work in the NFL right now, but unlike Alvaro, I don't like the rules. I can live with them when they're not deciding (my) games by silly technicalities, but in this case I'm going to be upset."

419
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by AlanSP :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:04pm

Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very well, since it would not create a different definition of a catch in different parts of the field. Put simply, two feet + control + some play-ending condition (the player being down or in the end zone) = catch (and the end of the play). Those aren't different rules for the end zone and the rest of the field any more than there are different rules in the end zone and the rest of the field in general (e.g. obviously, plays end immediately on possession in the end zone, but not the rest of the field)

Frankly, I'd get rid of the "football move" thing as well, since that's about as vague a term as you'll find in the rule book, but that's sort of a separate issue.

298
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Q (not verified) :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:27pm

With the new likely CBA a Top pick will likely be much more vauable and inexpensive than they have been

302
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by batbatt :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:30pm

will one of the db's for washington just hang onto the ball?

306
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:35pm

This feels like a "deserve's got nothin' to do with it" win either way.

310
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by nat :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:38pm

More a "deserves to lose" game. And the Cowboys wanted it more.

307
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by batbatt :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:36pm

That play pretty much summed up the entire game.

308
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by semigruntled Eagles Fan (not verified) :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:37pm

There could not have been a more fitting conclusion to this game.

309
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:38pm

That was my favorite last play of a game this week. And I had the Boys in my pool.

- Alvaro

311
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:39pm

Wow. Just wow. What an amazingly awful way for Dallas to end that game.

Incredible.

312
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:41pm

No way he calls that in Dallas.

316
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:04am

Maybe, maybe not. It was pretty blatant, though.

318
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:05am

Really? You don't think he calls a guy doing a full-on choke-hold on the guy that STILL almost sacked Romo? As much as it would have been better for my wallet if the Boys had won, there is no way that TD happens if Barron doesn't do one of the most blatant holdings I have seen.

- Alvaro

361
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:31am

That was a ridiculously blatant hold that would have been called anywhere, at any point in the game. Barron was behind him with his arm wrapped around his neck. How could this even be argued?

Also, Alex Barron sucks.

313
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Dan :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:55pm

Alex Barron, ladies and gentlemen.

314
Alex Barron
by Spielman :: Sun, 09/12/2010 - 11:56pm

When the Rams cut Bobby Carpenter, we were inundated by Cowboys fans laughing at us for giving away a starting tackle for absolutely nothing.

Well, we did give up Alex Barron for nothing, that's true.

However, after today's game, I make the following assertion:
WE STILL WON THAT TRADE, BITCHES.

320
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Key19 :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:25am

Why is it that an offensive penalty automatically ends the game? That rule makes zero sense to me. Even if the game didn't end, the advantage would still be completely in the defense's favor given an offensive penalty. Two situation can occur:

1. Offensive penalty on an offensive TD. Penalty is accepted and offense has to replay down with yardage penalty. Offensive penalty is accepted by defense and therefore takes the score off the board, leading to no possible advantage for offense.

2. Offensive penalty on a failed play. Defense declines play. Game over.

So the whole idea is flawed of "offensive players would just self-penalize to get another chance at the play" that many claim is the reasoning behind the rule. There is no possible positive outcome for self-penalizing on the final play of a game. So why does the game end? Why is it not just like any other play where the defense can either accept or decline it?

322
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by DFL (not verified) :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:31am

The game didn't end BECAUSE there was an offensive penalty. It ended because there was no time left on the clock.

323
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by semigruntled Eagles Fan (not verified) :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:38am

So the whole idea is flawed of "offensive players would just self-penalize to get another chance at the play" that many claim is the reasoning behind the rule. There is no possible positive outcome for self-penalizing on the final play of a game. So why does the game end? Why is it not just like any other play where the defense can either accept or decline it?

If the clock is running and there is less than 2 minutes in the game, any offensive penalty automatically leads to a 10 second runoff (or a timeout by the offense, if they have any remaining) - thus preventing the penalty yards applied for the foul being offset by the time saved for the offense. Allowing the game to end on an offensive foul is simply being consistent with the general rules applied in the final 2 minutes.

326
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:48am

It IS like any other play. The game did not end because of the penalty. The game ended because time run out. Play ends, clock is at 0:00, game ends before the D can choose wether to accept or decline, just as it would end if there had been no penalty on the play.

The only rule that changes wether a game ends or not on a penalty is when it's a defensive penalty. And there it is very much so because otherwise defensive players would just maul, head-slap, etc. during the last play of the game since there's going to be no repercusion. So that's why the rule's in play. Since doing the same for offensive penalties would actualyl encourage the offense to hold, maul, etc, there is no rule concerning offensive penalties during the last play of the game.

Also, the 10 second run-off ONLY applies to dead-ball penalties like false start. Penalties during the plays such as holding do not incurr the 10-second run-off. So that is not what happened here. The clock just expired on it's own.

- Alvaro

339
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 2:09am

Actually, thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if, even after the clock has hit 0, the D has the option of accepting or decling, but here's what happens:

If the Redskins decline, the play counts, TD, Cowboys win after the XP. If they accept (which tecnically I guess is what happened), play doesn't count, still Cowboys ball, still whatever down it was but 10 yards further back, only there's no more time on the clock to replay the down. Game ends. Should be interesting to see if the 10-yards are counted towards the Cowboys' total penalty yards for the game (which they should under that scenario).

This would actually be relevant if, for example, during the Miracle at the Meadowlands, the Giants had been called for holding before the fumble. If the D didn't have the option to decline (thus keeping the Herm TD), the game would be over and the Giants win. And thus, if an in-game offensive penalty actualy did incurr an automatic run-off without giving the D a chance to decline, there would be a very high motivation for the team running out the clock to intentionally hold. Just keep replaying the down over and over agian until the game is over (and come to think of it, when they need a first down to run out the clock, I'm not sure why more O-Linemen don't blatantly hold if the runner's about to be stuffed. Either the runner makes the first down and, if it was called, they have to replay the down further running down the clock and having another shot at the first down, or he doesn't and the penalty, if called, is declined anyway).

- Alvaro

328
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:57am

Except the idea isn't flawed.

Alex Barron could theoretically hold every single play, until the defense stopped them or the refs got tired of calling it (or didn't see him), and get to keep redoing it albeit from further away. That's where the advantage is.

334
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 1:41am

No, wait, what? No. That is completley unture.

Even if there was no time run-off (which there ISN'T for holding), he could not keep doing it because, just like ANY other play that gets brought back throughout the game, the clock winds down during the play and is not put back on it. Ever.

Which is why there's no advantage to intentionally penalizing on the last play (except for the possibility of not being caught, just like in every other play of the game), and thus no rule to discurage it's use. The run-off applies to dead-ball penalties only!

- Alvaro

337
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 1:56am

If accepting the penalty didn't end the game, that's what could happen.

340
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 2:18am

Accepting the penalty does not end the game in any way, shape or form! The clock having run out ends the game, wether the penaty is accepted or declined.

Let me give you an example of how what you propose would actually work in reality under the current rules where accepting the penalty does not end the game:

10 seconds to go, Cowboys run a play that takes up 8 seconds. Doesn't matter if Barron holds in second #1 or second #7, the penalty is not called untill the play is over. No aditional time is run off the clock nor does the game end because of the penalty. Play just doesn't count and they get penalized 10 yards. End result: the cowboys are in the exact same position they were before, except 10 yards back and with only 2 seconds on the clock. How exactly is that in any way, shape or form, beneficial to them? If they then run another 8-second play and Barron decides to once again hold, play AGAIN doesn't count, and the clock expired 6 seconds ago, so there's no time to re-play the down a third time.

At no point did the penalty end the game, or run time off. And the very good reason for that is that thre is absolutely no advantage to having an in-play penalty called on you, unlike a dead-ball penalty, where you oculd buy your team time to get lined-up at the expense of 5 yards. Which is why only dead-ball offensive penalties get the run-off. To offset that advantage.

- Alvaro

344
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 2:37am

What I mean is if the game couldn't end on an accepted penalty, the way it can't end on a defensive penalty.

378
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:04pm

Oh yeah. That would be really, really bad. But the original point was that the penalty ended the game (in relation to the 10-second run-off), which is not the case. It just continues the game. hence my confussion as to your argument.

- Alvaro

333
Eagles send 2 concussed players back in!!!
by Basilicus :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 1:37am

And I thought I hated the Eagles for giving Michael Vick money.

But no, they sent not one, but two players back into the game after concussions. One, Kevin Kolb, was a questionable call. I wouldn't hold that against them had they not, earlier in the game, sent Stewart Bradley back in after being as punch-drunk as I've ever seen a human being, 2 plays after stumbling around and collapsing on the field. A 3-year-old could've seen Bradley was severely, severely concussed. Way to care about your players, Eagles. There isn't even a competition for my most-hated team now.

357
Re: Eagles send 2 concussed players back in!!!
by BJR :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:50am

Well they had a terrible night last night if that is any consolation, getting beat, losing Leonard Weaver and Jamaal Jackson for the season, and potentially losing Kolb and Bradley for a couple of weeks to concussions.

336
Re: The Megatron Decision
by Luke :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 1:52am

just want to add my voice to the outrage of all common sense loving football fans. That was a touchdown all day, every day. The play was well and truly dead when the ball came out. Terrible, brain-dead umpiring.

A Champion of the Lost Cause

342
Re: The Megatron Decision
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 2:34am

You might want to get caught up. Even those comentators that vehemently mantain it should be a catch are not trying to say that it was bad officiating. I think it has been pretty much stablished that the rule was called correctly. Now the anger shifts to it being a bad rule (a statement with which I disagree vehemently myself). But you can't call a correctly called rule (even if you think said rule is wrong) brain-dead umping. That only makes your argument start from a position clearly in the wrong.

- Alvaro

348
Re: The Megatron Decision
by Big Johnson :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 3:28am

except the play is over once calvins butt hits the ground. Since the ball was out after his butt hit the ground it should be ruled no different than if he tossed it to the ref at that exact moment in time. I think you are interpreting the rule wrong bigcheese. he needs to maintain possession to the ground, not to the ground, through a spin, dodge defenders as they have a 3 second window to knock the ball loose till he stands up and tosses the ball to the ref.

365
Re: The Megatron Decision
by RichC (not verified) :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:52am

"except the play is over once calvins butt hits the ground."

No, it absolutely is not. Its not over until he stops moving.

375
Re: The Megatron Decision
by Big Johnson :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:20am

then the play is still going on as we speak since there is no way in hell calvin was able to sleep soundly last night.

343
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Still Alive (not verified) :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 2:35am

I response I hope the lions DBs spend a lot of time annihilating anyone who makes a catch in the endzone. Seems like a proper response to that rule.

My $.02

355
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Theo :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:36am

I really don't even understand the logic of the ruling here (Calvin Catch)
He catches the ball, goes to the ground, on his butt while HOLDING the ball. He even sticks it out with one hand.
Then he stands up and *puts the ball on the ground*. How that is not controlling the ball while down... in the endzone. I don't even see how that is not a catch, nor how the rule can be read as if it's not a catch.
It's clearly a catch and he puts the ball on the ground (I'm repeating myself).
Even with the wrong interpretation of the rule that's a catch.

363
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Eddo :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:45am

"Then he stands up and *puts the ball on the ground*."

Um, no. The ball is out well before he stands up.

------

To those insisting the rule is applied inconsistently, are you aware that Aromashodu had a similar incompletion earlier in the game? Left his feet (though not nearly as much as Johnson did), appeared to catch the ball as he was hit, but when he was on the ground, the ball came loose. It was correctly ruled an incompletion. The fans in front of me were all outraged, screaming for Lovie to throw the challenge flag, but I pointed out that the rule is that you must possess the ball all the way to the ground. Aromashodu didn't, and neither did Calvin Johnson.

As Big Cheese/Alvaro (which do you prefer?) has been patiently reminding everyone, this rule makes a lot of sense most of the time. The Johnson catch was obviously a very fluky-looking and very high-leverage situational application of the rule, but it's not incorrect, and it's not inconsistent. It's probably a good rule on the whole.

Unless, of course, you want to change the rule to read that "you must possess the ball to the ground, but if it would be a game-winning touchdown, then you're cool."

366
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:02am

Can you find video of the Aromashodu almost-catch? I'm looking for it to see if I can justify making a distinction between the plays, but I can't find it.

379
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:07pm

Either one's fine. The first one's the handle I've been going by on the net since I first came on, but in discussion forums, specially those of substance, I beleive in what Sam Seaborn once said: "When I write something, I sign my name to it."

Also, I've found that most non-spanish speakers have a hard time pronouncing my name correctly (my favorite was being called Albatross when I lived in Germany), so Al's fine as well :P

- Alvaro

354
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by MFurtek (not verified) :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:13am

Imagine a play. A sideline catch. Where the receiver is leaning over and falls down as he catches the ball. As he hits the ground, the ball comes out, even though he did possess the ball and he keeps his feet on the ground.

Sometimes this play is called the other way, I believe *that* is a mistake for the officials.

358
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:06am

On further review, let me go through the entire thought process I had. I wasn't really paying attention, so when I saw the live, I just saw the ball on the ground, thought, "Incomplete." Then on the replay, it clearly showed Megatron had control all the way down, and the closest ref signaling touchdown. TOUCHDOWN! So I was celebrating and missed the first bit of the discussion, came back just to hear the "2nd football move" stuff FOX was talking about. I remain confused.

I maintain - and will continue to maintain - that that was a catch. It clearly was in common-sense terms. I understand the necessity for the "process of the play" rule in midfield play. But to me - and I could be wrong, I'm going to be biased here, I am a Lions fan - that was a catch, he had clear possession, and he spiked the ball as he got up after the "process of the catch" was complete, no different from anything any receiver's done a hundred times. The close ref - who signaled the TD - didn't signal till after he spikes (also now known as "loses") the football. And that's what CJ himself said he was thinking, "I'm down, catch is done, TD."

If that catch had been made midfield as part of a hurry-up - assume a defender put a hand on him to rule him down by contact - and he got up that fast leaving the ball, it would have been ruled a catch. If he had carried the ball with him instead of spiking it - and spiking it required more control, not less - it would have been ruled a catch. In no sane world is that not ruled a catch, whatever TheBigCheese/Alvaro says.

Further, while I understand the reasons for the process distinctions, I don't like them. If you land with the ball under control, and then you lose control, it's a fumble, no matter how far you've gone, half a step or five steps or fifty yards. I know that's not the way the rules work in the NFL right now, but unlike Alvaro, I don't like the rules. I can live with them when they're not deciding (my) games by silly technicalities, but in this case I'm going to be upset.

Plus I've got some leftover rage from a way-old game, Detroit against Tampa, where Harrington threw a TD to win it, also ruled incomplete - and then an identical Brady to whoever they had before Moss wasn't even so much as reviewed in the later game that day. I just feel like - and this isn't necessarily logical - if this had been Brady to Moss, Manning to Wayne, Flacco to Boldin, the initial TD call wouldn't have been questioned, and if it had been the "ruling on the field" it would have been upheld.

I understand: if it was a good call, it's the rule's "fault"; the rule has its place, even if I don't like it; tough luck. But I think it was a bad call, and no one's yet convinced me - really convinced me - otherwise.

367
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by dmb :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:16am

We went through all of this in Week 1 last year, only with a bit less hoopla because it wasn't a potentially game-winning score. Also, it was the Raiders.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d812adbab/Offi...

370
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:49am

Yeah, same rule - but that catch played out totally differently. I guess the question is, 1) how long do you have to maintain control after "going to ground" and 2) what counts as "going to ground". With the Louis Murphy negated TD, replay clearly shows that when his hand hit the ground holding the ball to his chest it was loose enough that it came out. Whereas in the Calvin Johnson touchdown the ball is fully in his control up to the moment he puts the ball down on the ground. At no point did CJ "lose control of the ball" - he practically spiked the thing!

[EDIT: I keep meaning to say this and then forgetting: What I'm not going to debate - and am going to say myself very clearly - is this: with this strict definition of a "catch" in play, there's no question that Calvin Johnson *should* have held on to the ball till he was clearly, absolutely, 110% without a doubt either on the ground or up on his feet again in possession, for the benefit of the referees and avoiding the whole problem.

My argument that it was a bad call stands on these two legs:
1) I still think that he clearly had control on the ground, and didn't release the ball until he was getting up. I, in fact, think he intentionally spiked the ball (a "second act", as it were) after the catch was clearly complete, but I obviously can't know his intentions.
2) The referee closest to the play signaled for a touchdown, after Johnson released the ball. (For the play to be called incomplete, this suggests that he was then overruled by someone farther from the play.)

One other thing I will admit: once ruled an incompletion by the "process of the catch" rule, the review was right to not overturn that ruling - it isn't clear enough to overturn it. But I do continue to argue that "incompletion" was the wrong ruling to begin with, both because replay clearly showed Johnson in full control, and because the closer ref - the only one with a good view of Johnson - signaled touchdown.]

362
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by joon :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:36am

as a redskins fan, thinking about that game continues to fill me with glee. but i think you don't have to be a redskins fan to enjoy watching the cowboys shoot themselves in the foot.

also, anybody around here remember this?

Alex Barron -- A Star Is Born

369
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Spielman :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:48am

Wow. That was a lot more fun to read than another thousand words from Big Cheese on what constitutes a catch. Thanks for the link.

382
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:28pm

I agree ;P

- Alvaro

380
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:14pm

Hard to say which was MDS's finest prose- that, the piece he wrote for FOX where he said Lovie Smith should be in the genius category of coaches, or the one where he said Eli Manning would be a 3rd round pick if his name were Eli Smith.

383
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:29pm

Mike Tirico says John Connor is called "The Terminator" because of his big hits. Dumbfounded.

384
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:34pm

Let's see if missing camp affected Revis...

- Alvaro

385
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:35pm

And just as I hit send, looks like we're going to have ot wait another series to find out...

- Alvaro

386
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by bigtencrazy (not verified) :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:36pm

Is Flacco still alive?? Yikes!

387
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:43pm

Not sure how that wasn't a blow to the head
----------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

389
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:45pm

It wasn't Brady or a glamour QB.

388
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BigCheese :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:44pm

And on the first Ravens 3rd down, Revis pulls a Barron on his man...

- Alvaro

390
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:49pm

"this might be the toughest WR in the league"

try asking ed reed about that. heh

----------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

391
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:50pm

heap fail.

-----------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

392
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 7:54pm

LMAO !!!!!!! def holding on 3rd and 28.
nice sell TJ doush.

-----------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

393
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Lance :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:28pm

This Jets D is pretty good. The Ravens can't seem to run on them at all. Especially on 1st down!

394
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:29pm

Kyle Wilson is the human bulls-eye.

395
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:33pm

joe failco.

------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

397
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:36pm

Shh, he's an elite QB.

396
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:33pm

nice block in the back by revis on the return.

---------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

398
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:39pm

correction on replay bolding turned his side into the block .

--------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

399
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:47pm

The Jets can stop being stupid whenever they're ready.

400
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:48pm

failco.

---------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

402
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:08pm

Chris Berman at halftime, on what a wacky unpredictable start of the season we've had: "already we've had 5 playoff teams from last season lose and its still summer". He even rattled off those playoff teams - Indy, Minnesota, Philly, Dallas and Cincinnati.

Gee, chris, 3 of those 5 lost playing ANOTHER PLAYOFF TEAM. Meaning barring a rash of ties, you were gonna have 3 lose no matter what (and one more after this game). So you basically had 2 playoff teams from last year get upset, and of those one was one where you could see it coming and had been due for years really (Houston).

403
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Marko :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:08pm

And Chris Berman was only the third most annoying thing at halftime. Number one was that stupid concert. And number two was that "gee whiz" Sports Science guy.

416
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by AlanSP :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:46pm

Yeah, I was actually hopeful when they said they were doing a sports science segment, since there are a lot of cool things they could talk about, but it basically just amounted to "wow, these guys are really fast!"

401
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:06pm

4/7 for 23 yards in the first half. Truly, Mark Sanchez is showing himself to be worth the hype.

404
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:16pm

Are you doubting the greatness of the Sanchize?

405
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:18pm

You can not doubt that which does not exist.

406
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:23pm

Seriously, why burn a timeout there? You're not gonna get a first down, and you're only gonna lose about 2.5 yards on a half-the-distance penalty.

407
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:25pm

Okay well maybe you'll pick it up. But you'd have picked that up either way.

408
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:27pm

So the game plan for attacking the Jets- forgetting about running, find Kyle Wilson, and throw at him over and over.

409
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:27pm

I am starting to feel sorry for Kyle Wilson.

410
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:37pm

That sequence was full of win by Zbikowski. When the only chance the Jets have of scoring is if the Ravens hand it to them, that's not what you want to do.

411
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:37pm

That was all kinds of dumb by Zbikowski.

412
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by B :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:39pm

We were 1 yard away from the Jets best play of the game being a punt.

413
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:39pm

golden dome excellence .

-----------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

414
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:42pm

The night almost got even worse for Wilson. Sheesh.

415
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:42pm

Wilson fumbles the punt return. Quite the debut he's having tonight.

417
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Athelas :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:49pm

Is that right?
Sanchez has only completed SIX passes?

418
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 9:53pm

I don't see how the Jets are going to be able to do damage against an above-average defense this year unless Holmes really is the missing piece of the puzzle.

421
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:15pm

Well this is the Ravens. They've made other offenses look this bad...

423
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:19pm

A fair point, but the Jets look awful. The Ravens are a good defense but they look unbreakable tonight.

420
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:06pm

If this game is any indication of the rest of the season, Anquan Boldin can expect a very nice Christmas gift from Joe Flacco.

422
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by ZOMG (not verified) :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:17pm

Mark Sanchez is attempting to be the first QB to start 16 games and throw for less than a 1000 yards.

424
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by batbatt :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:23pm

33 yards passing for the Jets? At first I thought that I was seeing things.

425
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:25pm

Yeah but no INTs for Sanchez, so he's had a good game.

426
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:27pm

He's doing all he can to grab the Captain Checkdown mantle.

427
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:30pm

It is a vacant title right now with Leinart holding a clipboard.

A minute to go on your 30 and you use your last timeout. That's New York Jets football!

428
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:33pm

LOL 9.5 yard throw on 4th and 10. Sanchize!

429
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:33pm

Wow that's a pathetic way to end the game. He must've still been doozy from the hit Lewis put on him.

430
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by FireOmarTomlin :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:33pm

I think rayray must have knocked keller loopy. why run out short of the chains there ?

or is he just a tard?

-----------------
Men are more ready to repay an injury than a benefit because gratitude is a burden and revenge a pleasure.

431
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:35pm

In Soccer they sometimes describe games as a 1-0 massacre, meaning a game where the team that wins only one by 1, but the outcome was never in doubt. That's how this felt.

432
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:35pm

My boss is a Purdue grad and Jets fan. Remind me to avoid the office as much as possible tomorrow so he doesn't make my life total hell.

433
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by MilkmanDanimal :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:38pm

That finish was actually funny. The game was terrible, but capping a pathetic performance like that by running out of bounds a half-yard short on fourth down just seems perfectly appropriate.

434
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:39pm

Maybe Keller dipped into Holmes' stash?

438
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:50pm

I actually liked this game. It was two great defenses going at it.

Although Sanchez looked worse and worse as the game went on.

454
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by MilkmanDanimal :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:21am

Baltimore basically asked the custodial staff of their stadium to play secondary, so I'm not sure they count as a "great defense" as much as they count as a "oh, look, it's Mark Sanchez, and he sucks".

435
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by B :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:40pm

It's fun to blame Keller, and easy, too, but who calls a 9 yard out on 4th and 10? Oh, right, Marty's son.

436
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:45pm

I understand why ESPN used Bon Jovi to go to commercial in the Jets game, but why in the Chiefs/Chargers game as well?

437
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:47pm

Because Bon Jovi is to music what the Chiefs are to offense. And defense.

439
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tally :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:54pm

But we weren't even halfway there...

441
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Southern Philly :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:55pm

Please, no.

465
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Mr Shush :: Wed, 09/15/2010 - 12:12pm

You give puns a bad name.

440
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tally :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:55pm

Why is Thomas Jones the starting RB again?

442
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tally :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:56pm

Sexy cheerleaders + rain + wind + semi-transparent parkas

One of the above isn't necessary.

443
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Rocco :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:06pm

Fantastic series by the Chiefs offense. I think the Chargers knew the run was coming.

444
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by batbatt :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:07pm

A seven yard punt? Awesome.

445
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by AlanSP :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:09pm

Is KC seriously punting from the 32? There's almost never a good reason to do that . You either go for it (yes, even on 4th and 10) or kick a field goal.

446
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:12pm

Gee Arenas is pretty good.

448
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:34pm

OK maybe its more the Charger's punt coverage that sucks.

447
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by andrew :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:18pm

Ok, let's see if KC can screw up a drive starting from the San Diego 10.

449
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Andrew Potter :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:45pm

Somebody might want to tell San Diego it's okay to tackle. Are they THAT afraid of the new rules?

450
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:47pm

The Chiefs are really beating the crap out of the Chargers.

451
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tally :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:50pm

San Diego and bad weather don't mix
Bolts and water don't mix

*sigh*

452
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tornadot :: Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:56pm

As a Denver fan, Chiefs offense is kinda scary but if Cassel could improve, that offense will be terrifying. Chargers D hasn't really impressed at all but did they do much to improve it (Okay cutting Cromartie can't hurt)? And would the protection for Rivers be better if McNeil was back there?

453
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tally :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:18am

Yes. They're playing a converted right tackle there.

455
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BJR :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:23am

The idiot announcer keeps expressing his outrage at every incomplete pass thrown by Philip Rivers. Perhaps he is trying to force it a bit, but the conditions are abominable. Cut him some slack ffs.

459
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 1:35am

Trent Dilfer was awful.

On the blown coverage that lead to the Naanee TD, he attributed this to the defense worrying about Gates, as if an NFL defense would let a guy get open 40 yards downfield by choice.

He also praised anything a QB would do in just about any circumstance. Yeah Trent, not all QBs are as terrible as you. Some can move out of the pocket and complete a pass.

He made a number of other foolish remarks I can't recall right now. I was expecting the Mike, Mike and Mike trio and was mildly excited about it, and instead we get this. Bleh.

457
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by BJR :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 12:34am

Wow, that was some blown coverage

458
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by RickD :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 1:20am

Well, the Chargers finally woke up, but they had dug too much of a hole. I'm irritated with the Chiefs for not covering Naanee at all for his TD catch. That one play cost me my FF game this week.

460
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Big Johnson :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 1:45am

the charger game was one of the weirdest games ive seen in a long time. highly entertaining. The chiefs were the exact definition of boom or bust. This game reminded me of a 1v1 game of basketball where the two skills of the players are on different levels. The chargers spotted the chiefs 21 points and had to overcome the handicap. It never felt like the chiefs were gonna get even a first down, and that the chargers would undoubtedly come back. it was bound to come down to a last drive.

The chargers seemed to miss vincent a lot but it might have been the rain. I hope it was the conditions. For all the crap rivers is getting for having a bad passing game, he out tossed cassell by over 200 yards even though all the receivers were playing on roller skates. The worst part about not having jackson is that buster davis has to play. Ive never seen a more useless player.

the running game looked worse than i hoped, the passing game looked worse than i hoped, but the defense looked pretty good. then again.... kansas city's two starting receivers are chris chambers and dwayne bowe....

461
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Mr Shush :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 9:09am

I'm starting to wonder if I watched the same game as everyone else. The Chiefs were solid but not great running the ball and stopping the run, lousy passing and defending the pass, and won thanks to a combination of bad weather and terrible punt coverage from the Chargers. I thought Justin Tryon had to have played the worst punt coverage of the weekend after failing to down not one but two perfect punts at the one. I was wrong. If those teams played again under the exact same conditions, the Chargers would win more often than not. If they played under normal conditions, the Chargers would win the vast majority of the time time. Yes, the Chiefs have a couple of very good new return men, and a running back with big play potential. They're still not going to have many games where they get those kind of big plays.

462
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tornadot :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 11:07am

After sleeping on it, I have to agree. Chiefs did get some nice runs in but the offense seems a bit boom/bust (I'm sure someone mentioned it) especially when you see how little Cassel contributed. They need him to be more consistant. Matthews showed promise but once he got that fumble, he didn't seem as effective, doesn't help with the weather like you said. Chargers Special Team seems as good as it was last year so while the returners did show promise, you have to wonder how they'd do against a team with good special teams.

Also a little tough to gauge this game seeing as how notoriously slow the Chargers start in the season.

463
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by Jonadan :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 11:13am

I have to wonder how much KC's problems were due to a combination of two things:

1) They were only running pass plays on 3rd down for most of the game, it looked like, and that sort of play-calling /has/ to be no good for establishing any sort of rhythm.
2) Dwayne Bowe and Chris Chambers can't hold on to the damn ball. There were at least 4 dropped passes - probably partly due to the rain - if you assume that a competent receiver would have caught 2 of those, 12/22 is at least over 50%, rather than the terrible 10/22.

Rivers' 22/39 wasn't that fantastic either, and he too had issues with B-team receivers dropping the rock, but his stat line still looks better because he was throwing all game.

What it came down to this time was Chiefs' D and special teams beating the Charger's passing game. If they don't get Cassel performing better though, I agree, Chargers will win the next one handily.

464
Re: Week 1 Open Discussion Thread
by tuluse :: Tue, 09/14/2010 - 2:44pm

The Chiefs were awful at everything offense. They broke one big run, and had two big returns. That was their whole offense last night.

Their defense looked pretty incredible though.

Login or register to post comments