Audibles at the Line: Divisional Round

Audibles at the Line: Divisional Round
Audibles at the Line: Divisional Round
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

compiled by Andrew Potter

Each Sunday, the FO staff sends around e-mails about the games that each of us are watching. We share information about the games that the rest of the group might not be watching, ask questions, and keep everyone else informed about which games they might want to turn into (if they can).

On Monday, we compile a digest of those e-mails and produce this feature. By its nature, it can be disjointed and dissimilar to the other articles on the site.

While these e-mails are generally written with Audibles in mind, they do not represent a standard review of all the games each week. That means we aren't going to cover every game, or every important play. We watch the games that we, as fans, are interested in watching, so your favorite team's game might not be covered to your fullest desires or even at all. (If you are a Steelers or Patriots fan, you are probably in luck; if you are a Bills fan, not so much.) We have no intention of adding new authors to cover every game on a given Sunday, nor will we watch a different game from the ones that we're personally interested in watching, just to ensure that Audibles covers every game.

Baltimore Ravens 31 at New England Patriots 35

Cian Fahey: Simply an exceptional opening drive from the Ravens. Nice play-calling by Gary Kubiak mixing in the tight end screen and hard play action.

Aaron Schatz: Pats were playing their corners strictly by sides on the drive, which ended up meaning Darrelle Revis on Marlon Brown on most plays. That seems like a waste.

Ben Muth: Loved the tight end screen early from Kubiak and Baltimore after how much they kept their tight ends in to block last week. Great opening drive.

Aaron Schatz: Patriots are playing almost exclusively zone coverage here today, and they're getting killed in the first two drives. I think Ravens have had one unsuccessful play through their first dozen or so.

... and they finally go man in the red zone, and Steve Smith beats Revis on a slant. 14-0. Yikes.

Cian Fahey: The Patriots just look limp. Everywhere they are a step slow. The Ravens, as they seemingly always do under John Harbaugh, are executing at their peak in the playoffs.

Tom Gower: One of the things Gary Kubiak does early in the game is use motion and come out throwing to identify how you're defending him, then make adjustments off of that. Going zone early, then switching to man would be a good way to counteract that. Unless, of course, Baltimore rips apart your zone and goes up 14-0 after Steve Smith beats Darrelle Revis in what looked like man with a nasty move.

Aaron Schatz: Pats finally get a touchdown drive when the Ravens decide to leave the middle of the field wide-open on three straight plays. Pats almost blow the touchdown on first-and-goal from the 1-yard line when Ravens tackle Brandon Bolden for a 3-yard loss with INSANE push from Brandon Williams and Haloti Ngata. I mean, just destroyed the Patriots interior line. DESTROYED. But that big wide-open hole in the middle is back on third-and-goal and Brady goes 4 on a scramble for the touchdown.

Cian Fahey: On the big play to Rob Gronkowski before Tom Brady's rushing touchdown, the Patriots lined Gronk up as the inside tight end to the left with Tim Wright on the outside. Wright ran to the sideline and Gronkowski ran down the seam. Against the Ravens' Cover-3, it put the cornerback in an awful position. Essentially put Gronkowski wide-open.

Tom Gower: Key play on New England touchdown drive to make it 14-7 was the third-and-8 conversion where Rob Gronkowski ended up wide-open at the sticks. I'd love to know what happened in coverage there, as it appeared Baltimore may have been trying to do something creative in pressure and it cost them.

Andrew Healy: They had Pernell McPhee dropped into the short zone and Gronk ran past him into that huge void, I think. So I think that was a zone blitz that failed when Brady bought some time by stepping up and McPhee couldn't cover the space.

Cian Fahey: Went back to take a look at it, Pernell McPhee dropped into coverage over Gronkowski. Looked like man based on how the play developed. As he was working across to the tight end, Gronkowski knocked him over so he was on his back as Gronkowski continued in his route. Deep safety didn't have time to beat the football to him.

Aaron Schatz: Looked like the Pats finally were going. Ravens pass rush wasn't getting home... then they sacked Brady twice, including one he absolutely couldn't take on third-and-16 on the outskirts of field-goal range. Plus Bryan Stork got injured on that play... and the Pats tack on a 15-yard taunting penalty on the ensuing punt.

Cian Fahey: Sky Sports (TV broadcaster over here) just broke down Dan Connolly rugby tackling Timmy Jernigan on the Tom Brady touchdown run. Hadn't noticed it at the time, but it was blatant with the official standing right behind it.

Andrew Healy: The Patriots had a nice drive going, moving with all throws out of empty formations. Then the drive stalled shortly after they started going with a back. Brady has to throw that ball away, although I think Belichick should still try the field goal from the 34-yard line even with the temperature. As it is, they end up gaining 9 yards of field position after a delay of game and then an unsportsmanlike conduct on the ensuing punt.

Would like to see more Tim Wright and less Michael Hoomanawanui when they go five wide.

Vince Verhei: Just got caught up on DVR after that Patriots punt. Early general observation: Holy crap, the Ravens are blocking the SNOT out of everyone. Is it too late to vote for Gary Kubiak as top assistant?

Andrew Healy: Yes, they are getting a huge push on most of these Justin Forsett runs. He's averaging 8.6 yards per carry on eight carries so far and most of that is on the offensive line dominating. Vince Wilfork got pushed back 4 yards on the last one.

Danger alert: Josh Kline is on the field. Repeat, Josh Kline is on the field. Good offensive line play has not ensued when No. 67 has been involved.

Ben Muth: Fumble luck is real and is smiling on undersized receivers for New England today.

Andrew Healy: Julian Edelman fumbles and it comes back to him against all probability with four or five Ravens around the ball. They were very fortunate earlier on Danny Amendola's fumble, too. The Ravens' pass rush is getting home more now. Brady made a great play on a third-down conversion to Gronkowski with pressure up the middle.

I'm confused as to why the Patriots are trying to run as much as they are. Seven carries for 15 yards and little hope most of the time. The Ravens are great against the run, average against the pass. The Pats are the reverse on offense. Just throw.

Aaron Schatz: Not just runs for the Pats, but they're trying to run up the middle. Hey, did you guys notice how the Ravens' interior defensive linemen are kicking your ass? Don't run right into them.

Cian Fahey: I suspect running the ball anywhere is going to be tough unless the Ravens start playing Elvis Dumervil some more.

As much as Danny Amendola has struggled in New England, it should not be overlooked that he is a very talented receiver. His touchdown reception in the second quarter is the kind of play that he should be making with greater consistency.

Aaron Schatz: Ravens have been slicing through the Patriots defense easily with the zone running game. So on third-and-1, they go...with a tight end reverse? What is this, Sean Payton with Josh Hill? Loses yards. Punt to come. What is the point of that play call?

Cian Fahey: Gary Kubiak does a lot of good, but he always does just enough to remind me why I dislike him so much.

Andrew Healy: Wow, do I hate the reverse call on third-and-1 before the two-minute warning. The Patriots looked to be not overly loaded against the run to the right. The Ravens had been gashing the Patriots on the ground, dominating the line of scrimmage. No need for that play call. Kubiak did a lot of great play-calling early on, particularly on that beautiful first drive, rolling Joe Flacco to the right, but that is a head-scratcher.

Aaron Schatz: Oh, sorry. I thought that was a tight end, I guess it was a wide receiver coming from a tight position... anyway, still a wacko call.

Vince Verhei: Yes. I rescind my earlier vote for Kubiak. That was so too cute at so the wrong time.

I think the Patriots are running "so much" (is seven running back carries in a half really that much?) mostly to keep Brady alive. He took a thrashing on that second-quarter drive that ended in the punt/taunt.

Tom Gower: That was a terrible interception by Tom Brady in the two-minute drill at the end of the first half. I have no idea what he was doing. There maybe was something to Gronkowski on the deep post, but my guess is Brady just misread the coverage rather than badly underthrew the ball. Either way, huge chance for the Ravens to potentially go into the half leading, instead of trailing with New England getting the chance to go up two scores with the second-half opening kickoff.

Andrew Healy: The Patriots have a weapon in their defensive arsenal that they really need to pull out: the Jamie Collins blitz up the middle. They finally do as I write that. And a brutal pass interference call on Darrelle Revis, but Collins made the throw difficult.

Aaron Schatz: Steve Smith was holding onto Revis' arm the whole time. Was convinced that was going to be OPI. I don't get that call at all.

Scott Kacsmar: I guess that horrible end-around was offset by that horrible Brady throw. I think the last three times Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth have had New England, Brady has thrown a horrible interception right before halftime (Colts and Chargers games this year).

Going to be a fun second half. Patriots clearly look one-dimensional on offense, but the Ravens have given up some big plays to Gronkowski and haven't really adjusted yet to the short passes on the outside. Flacco played great and Forsett looks really good behind a superb line performance. Pretty important drive for New England to start the third quarter and do something productive.

Cian Fahey: I don't think Bryan Stork returned after his injury. It will be interesting to note if the Patriots feel comfortable going no-huddle without their starting center. That could prove to be decisive considering how the Ravens defense has reacted to it.

Ben Muth: I thought Baltimore dominated up front on both sides of the ball in the first half. Feel like the Pats are gonna need a big second half from Brady/Gronk to win this one.

Vince Verhei: Pats are getting fumble luck. They are not getting ref luck. The Smith/Revis PI call could have gone either way, and then Gronkowski gets mauled on the first third down of the second half and no flag.

Scott Kacsmar: Good case of "splits happen" to watch here. Patriots have allowed 12 points after halftime in their last six games combined. Since 1960, that has only been done by the 1976 Steelers and 1989 Redskins to end a season. So we'll have to see if there are excellent adjustments from Belichick with his defense that has come together, or if it's just "splits happen."

And I can't believe we live in a world where Joe Flacco can lay legitimate claim to being the best active postseason quarterback, at least since 2011.

Aaron Schatz: Now with the first drive in the second half, Pats have switched up their defense. Now they seem to be exclusively man with Revis on Steve Smith and Brandon Browner on Torrey Smith.

And fourth-and-6, the Ravens go deep, and take advantage of the man coverage. Browner is beat, no choice, has to get the DPI. Torrey Smith catches it anyway... and the Ravens taunt. Stupid, stupid, stupid. First-and-goal on the 16-yard line.

Cian Fahey: Jamie Collins is a really good player and he deserves much of the praise that he gets, but he's still somewhat inconsistent for my liking. Has looked lost on a couple of runs tonight and seemingly blew his assignment for the Forsett touchdown reception in the third quarter.

He's on his way to being a great linebacker, but I don't think he's there yet.

Tom Gower: Pretty sure it was first-and-10 at the 16-yard line, or at least it should've been. No matter either way, though, as Jamie Collins bites inside to help on the crosser, leaving Justin Forsett wide-open in the flat for an easy touchdown. If you had told me at the two-minute warning the score would be 28-14 midway through the third, I would not have been surprised, but I would have expected it to be New England ahead, not Baltimore. This is a significantly better game by Gary Kubiak than he had the last time he visited Foxborough in the postseason, when they didn't do much until they were down 25 in the fourth quarter.

Aaron Schatz: The Pats just sent off Josh Kline, the replacement for the injured Bryan Stork, and somehow used Shane Vereen as an offensive lineman on a play.

Then they did it with Hoomanuwanui. They announced him as ineligible and then put him out wide? What weirdness is this?

Ben Muth: If you get beat on a inside slant in man-to-man inside the 5-yard line you should be fined for conduct detrimental to the team. As soon as Baltimore showed that blitz, everyone in the stadium knew Brady was going to Gronk. Have to make them execute a fade, can't get beat inside like that.

Aaron Schatz: Next drive, Pats go back to zones. The defensive coverage just keeps changing.

Cian Fahey: Feels like the Patriots are getting the momentum here now.

Aaron Schatz: Cian, please be kidding. :)

Vince Verhei: As long as he's using "momentum" as a descriptive term for past events, I'm fine with it.

Cian Fahey: Belichick broke out a high school playbook to get back into this game. Vereen ineligible in the slot to throw to the left tackle, then the lateral to Edelman in the flat for the receiver-to-receiver touchdown pass. Ridiculous.

Andrew Healy: And I think that's Edelman's first career pass even though he played quarterback in college. Looked like a former quarterback, too. Right on the money.

Ben Muth: Great job by Patriots staff throwing everything they have at Baltimore. They're a little outmanned up front so they're getting creative on the play-calling with the sneaky ineligible receivers and now a double pass. This has been a wildly entertaining game through three quarters.

Aaron Schatz: Pats have also gone back to the no-huddle despite Ryan Wendell replacing Stork at center.

Despite the 28-28 score, Brady still underthrowing the ball. Just missed an open Gronk by throwing too low.

And Belichick's ridiculous conservative play-calling continues. Just punted on fourth-and-10 from the 37-yard line instead of trying a long field goal or what they should have done -- tried a draw on third-and-long to get a shorter field-goal try. Lousy punt by Ryan Allen went out of bounds at the 20, effectively a touchback. Completely wasted an interception by Devin McCourty.

Vince Verhei: At the end of the third quarter, it's tied at 28. Semi-random stat note: the Patriots have the edge in yards per completion, 13.3 to 10.5. That's surprising, because it feels like the Pats are throwing tons of quick hitches, but I guess those Gronkowski seam routes have made a big difference.

Andrew Healy: To echo Ben, this game has been wild. Jamie Collins came up with what looked like a huge play, forcing and recovering a fumble on the Ravens' 3-yard line. But a hold on Revis brings it back and the Ravens are driving as the third quarter ends.

Excellent offensive coaching on both sides. Kubiak with the deep throw on fourth-and-6 on the Ravens' first drive of the second half. And the truly original four-offensive linemen sets from the Patriots that led to repeated throws down the left seam. Great stuff all around.

The Ravens are dominating with the run as the fourth quarter begins. They have won at the line of scrimmage and it feels like the Patriots are the underdogs.

Cian Fahey: If the Ravens defensive backs could even play average football, this game probably wouldn't be close. The tackling in particularly has stood out as woeful.

Vince Verhei: Brady specifically telling Edelman when to "STOP!" and when to "GO!" in motion is my favorite thing he's done all day.

I take it back. Dropping that fade pass in the bucket for the Brandon LaFell touchdown, THAT was my favorite thing he's done all day. Made it look so easy and smooth.

Aaron Schatz: This game is nuts. Both teams have made amazing plays and horrible ones. Both teams have gotten away with penalties and gotten BS penalty calls. Both coaches have made great decisions and terrible ones, though the Patriots have only made terrible ones when it comes to fourth downs. 35-31 Patriots, five minutes to go. I have no clue how this ends.

Vince Verhei: Andrew noted, the Ravens have been running well all night. They need to remember they're only down by four, with more than five minutes left. No need to go one-dimensional now.

Andrew Healy: Agreed on that. Patriots' pass rush continues to be close to non-existent. No sacks and just three knockdowns of Flacco all game.

Scott Kacsmar: Dick LeBeau's "tackle the catch" philosophy would be fine today if Baltimore actually tackled well. Lot of credit to the effort of Amendola and Edelman in this one.

Vince Verhei: Ravens fans sing "Seven Nation Army" by the White Stripes.

Patriots fans sing "Your Love" by the Outfield.

If I had known that, I'd have been cheering for New England all night.

Aaron Schatz: Why the hell do the Patriots take a timeout when Ravens go for it on fourth-and-3 instead of throwing the red flag? That previous incomplete by Flacco was possibly a sack-fumble. Ravens recovered but would have lost yardage on the play, making it a longer fourth-down attempt. I understand trying to save the timeout, but if you decide to use the timeout, why not just throw the red flag? What do you have to lose?

Cian Fahey: Are they allowed to after the Ravens have taken a timeout?

Vince Verhei: Can they challenge in the last five minutes?

Aaron Schatz: Sure. They can't challenge in the final two minutes. As far as I know, the only question is whether they can challenge after Baltimore has taken a timeout, but I don't see why not.

I can't tell you the amount of anxiety that was in the air at Gillette. The Patriots ended up in the exact same situation as Super Bowl XLII and XLVI. Small lead, two minutes left, other team driving. The difference between this team and those teams was supposed to be the defense. This defense was supposed to hold that lead. And it actually did, as Duron Hurmon picked off Flacco deep to end the game.

Vince Verhei: Well that was wildly entertaining. Ravens' subpar secondary finally ended their season.

Somebody check on this -- I don't think any New England running back (and Lord knows there's enough of them) carried the ball in the second half.

Ben Muth: Really great game. I thought the Ravens had a damn good plan on both sides and executed well, they just didn't have the personnel in the secondary. If they get anything from the back end, I think they win comfortably. But between the bad tackling and playing way too soft because they were scared of getting beat deep, the secondary was just too much to overcome. But everyone knew that was their weakness all year, so I guess it's not surprising.

I was surprised how bad New England looked up front, particularly on defense. Baltimore dominated the Patriots' front seven in a way that has to be concerning. I'm going to write about this game this week, but I expect I'm going to have a lot of nice things to say about the Ravens offensive line.

Great job by New England's staff with adjustments as the game went along. No matter how bad the other team's secondary is, it's tough to win when you lose the battle up front on both offense and defense, but New England found a way. Opened up the playbook with some trick plays, and abandoned the run completely in the second half (something most coaches don't like to do) so they could attack where they had an advantage.

What a game!

Scott Kacsmar: No rushing plays for New England in the second half besides Brady kneeldowns. Fewest rushing yards (14) in playoff history by a winning team. Previous record was 29 by the 1999 Rams against the Titans.

Reflects poorly on Dean Pees for not going to tighter coverage on the outside. Look at the cushion they were even giving Vereen. Have to acknowledge the Patriots don't throw deep well, so make them make those throws. Totally one-dimensional offense and they let it beat them.

Horrific job by Flacco to force that bomb. Every week when I can, I write about how a team shouldn't force the low-percentage deep bomb for the touchdown in that situation. Play the clock and try to score as late as possible, because we know how quickly teams can answer. This was even more egregious since a touchdown only would have put Baltimore up three, and the Patriots still had Brady and Gostkowski with a good 90 seconds to answer. I don't think this evens up anything for Flacco, since the Sterling Moore play in 2011 kind of cancels out the 2012 Rahim Moore play, but this was just a really bad throw. And it was obvious earlier in the quarter when Baltimore's run-heavy, time-consuming drive ended with a field goal that it was in trouble. Field goals get you beat in Foxborough. Have to score touchdowns, which New England did.

Another team is gone after having their main weakness exposed. That's usually how it happens in the playoffs.

Tom Gower: Kudos to Baltimore's offense, particularly Gary Kubiak, the offensive line, and Joe Flacco. I didn't think they had the ball-handlers to seriously threaten New England's defense, and if the Patriots got to 21 or so New England was a lock to win. Instead they started out playing really well, had the great stretch before and after halftime, and really just kept the team in it the entire time. The last pick from Flacco was bad, but on the whole he did a nice job the rest of the time navigating what pressure there was, extending plays, and hitting tight windows. I could easily be missing some plays, but offhand I don't recall him really missing anything when he was in the pocket outside of getting too aggressive on the picks (the last one, it's second-and-5, don't try to force something if it's not there!).

Andrew Healy: After the game, I talked with guard Dan Connolly about the four-offensive lineman sets that the Patriots ran. He said that it was something that they had specifically in the game plan for this week. Note that I don't know that this means they saw something on the Ravens to exploit. I think it's more likely that they thought this would work against anybody, although it's possible that the Ravens' patchwork secondary would be more likely to respond with confusion.

Also, Connolly surprised me when he said the formation had been used before. He said not in the NFL, but in college. I don't know college well enough to know where that would have been.

One last thought on the four-lineman plays: I just watched the broadcast of that drive. They almost entirely missed what was going on, as far as I can tell. First, they don't really give you what the referee was announcing before the plays, which was that No. 34 as ineligible on two plays, No. 47 on the other. On the last two of the three plays, the referee also actually announced something close to "Don't cover that receiver." Second, they missed Hoomanawanui, then Gronkowski, and then Hoomanawanui lining up as the eligible left tackle on those three plays. Maybe they explain things later in the game, but I'm kind of surprised they missed this so completely. There was a reason Hoomanawanui was all alone on two of those plays and Edelman was uncovered on the other. The Patriots were doing something original and I would have expected Collinsworth to see it.

Andrew Potter: It's not exactly the same due to rules differences -- in college, your ineligible players must wear a number between 50 and 79 -- but here's Alabama doing basically the same thing against LSU.

Andrew Healy: Awesome! Makes a ton of sense that it was Saban.

Aaron Schatz: Notice also that the lineman in the slot steps backwards at the snap and waves his arms like he's going to get a screen pass. I believe Hoomanuwanui did this as well on at least one If the three plays.

Going back and reading, it's clear we were just as confused about what was going on at the time as the Ravens were. But what clever strategy. I love stuff like that. It was all I could talk about after the game.

Carolina Panthers 17 at Seattle Seahawks 31

Aaron Schatz: I wonder if Luke Kuechly asked Cam Newton to throw a pick to Richard Sherman so he would get a chance for more tackles. He's everywhere early.

Scott Kacsmar: Another taunting penalty involving a guy throwing a ball at an opponent. When will these guys learn? Just cost Seattle a field-goal attempt, though punting to Brenton Bursin is a decent turnover opportunity.

Vince Verhei: Early on, this game is nothing but a grand display of stupidity by everyone involved. A bunch of idiots trying to play a football game. Carolina has no first downs on their first three drives because -- even though they have worked hard to get third-and-1, third-and-2, and third-and-4, strong running downs -- they have passed ALL THREE TIMES, resulting in an interception and two punts.

Meanwhile, the Seahawks keep throwing those stupid wide receiver screens even though THEY HAVEN'T WORKED ALL YEAR. Then Ricardo Lockette takes away a field-goal try by flipping the ball into a defender's face right in front of the ref, moving Seattle back and forcing a punt. This after Jeremy Lane had a personal foul on a punt return, and Tharold Simon was warned about taunting after a tackle on Kelvin Benjamin.

Speaking of Benjamin, in not-necessarily-stupid but surprising news, he's lining up on the left, and Richard Sherman is not shadowing him. They are content to cover him with Simon. (No idea why Byron Maxwell is not in the game.)

Andrew Potter: If Carolina continues to be this careless with the ball, it won't matter how many stupid taunting penalties the Seahawks get. That's two fumbles, an interception, and a very fortunate non-interception in what, nine plays? Plus Brenton Bersin being Brenton Bersin.

Vince Verhei: Great throw by Russell Wilson on that touchdown to Baldwin. Recognized the blitz and threw to a spot in the end zone, trusting that Doug Baldwin would get behind the safety. He did.

I really liked Carolina's design on the run for a first down following Seattle's touchdown. It looked like a zone read with Jonathan Stewart taking the ball and heading left. In reality, it was the old Washington counter trey, with two linemen pulling left to right and Stewart cutting back and following them. Nice mix of deception, power, and execution.

Great throw by Wilson on that touchdown to Kearse, too. Also a great one-handed catch by Jermaine Kearse. I thought he got away with a push-off, though on replay there was a lot of mutual hand-fighting.

Cian Fahey: Wilson has played one of the best halves of his season to start this game. The Seahawks offense has had a few drops and dumb penalties to curtail their output, but the quarterback has been accurate and smart with his throws throughout.

Ben Muth: Just thinking the same thing. Between Andrew Luck's game last week and Wilson's this week I'm both incredibly excited to watch these guys play football for the next decade and depressed to listen to takez about which one you would rather have.

Cian Fahey: On the Cam Newton fumble in the second quarter that set up that fourth-and-1 play, the officials gave the Panthers 1.5 yards for no good reason. The ball is fumbled as soon as it is hit by the defender.

Scott Kacsmar: At halftime, FOX's Jimmy Johnson just said Cam Newton's early interception wasn't as good as a punt because stats show teams score more often after an interception than a punt. I'm sure in general he's right, but since he brought up the punt and field position angle, I doubt the numbers when adjusted for field position would show that. He's basically making a momentum argument where the team would be more likely to do something good because something really good and exciting (takeaway) just happened instead of something boring and mundane (a punt).

Vince Verhei: Seahawks lead 14-10 at halftime after dropped interceptions on both of Carolina's scoring drives. And then Kam Chancellor does some truly superhuman things and nearly blocks a field goal twice. I have no idea how he didn't get it on the "miss" that turned into a running into the kicker foul -- and if he did get it, that shouldn't have been a penalty, should it?

Panthers defense, even without Star Lotululei, is playing Seattle's run offense better than probably anyone has all year. They have so much depth on that line, and Luke Kuechly remains Luke Kuechly. Even though Wilson has hit some big plays, it may not have done much to loosen up the run game.

Tom Gower: Graham Gano completely shanked it from the get-go on the play where Chancellor was called for running into the kicker. Came off his foot wide, kept going wide the whole way. Bizarre that Chancellor missed getting the ball twice with two perfectly-timed leaps, but it happened.

Cian Fahey: I've watched it back a few times and I'm not sure. I think it hits his leg as it goes by. Obviously not a firm contact, but enough to alter the direction slightly. Irrelevant now of course.

Aaron Schatz: There's an essay in the book a couple years ago about the "momentum after turnovers" argument. I'll type in an excerpt when I get home.

Scott Kacsmar: All I can think of is teams like to call shot plays after a turnover with good field position. Guess they feel it's easier to take advantage of a "reeling team" off a takeaway versus a general punt. Of course the turnover wasn't the fault of the defenders coming onto the field, who as a counterpoint you could say know they have to play even better to not give up a touchdown on the short field.

Vince Verhei: Seattle ends the third quarter with a nice drive down the field. Last play of the quarter is a third-down sack and it looks like it will result in a field goal, but that was their best drive of the game, especially for running. Looks like they're wearing down their opponent again.

Aaron Schatz: I'm having trouble thinking of bright things to say about this game. It's basically everything we expected, but with a little extra Luke Willson.

Cian Fahey: Significance of this game has been Russell Wilson's display. While he has received more plaudits through this season as a whole, something that is inevitable for a quarterback who comes off a Super Bowl victory, he was a much sharper passer last season. Too often during this year's regular season he was playing hesitant and missing opportunities for big plays down the field.

[ad placeholder 3]

That wasn't the case today. As highlighted by his fourth-quarter touchdown pass to Luke Willson, the young quarterback is back to where he was during the first 12 weeks or so of the 2013 regular season.

If Wilson is playing like this, it's going to be very difficult for anyone to beat Seattle this season.

Scott Kacsmar: You could say Wilson was more impressive tonight than in any of last year's playoff games. What I liked was how he handled third downs and the way Lynch was basically shut down outside of one drive. This was Wilson driving the scoring tonight. I know Carolina's not that impressive of a defense, but some really great throws from Wilson.

Vince Verhei: Oh, I'd completely agree with that. Go back and read some of the Audibles from late in the year and the playoffs last season, we were all asking what was wrong with Wilson. He played better in the Super Bowl, but even then all his big plays came long after the game was decided. I'm convinced he had an injury that they kept hidden -- in the post-Super Bowl Gatorade dump, you can hear him saying he can only lift with one shoulder.

As for Aaron's comment that this is what we expected -- well, the final score, yes. But I'm surprised that Carolina's run D had, I'm sure, their best day today. I'm surprised (very, actually) that Sherman wasn't shadowing Benjamin all day, especially with Maxwell hurt. I'm surprised Jonathan Stewart only got 13 carries (and keep in mind, this was a one-score game for 50 minutes). I'm a little surprised Seattle had so many opportunities for big plays downfield -- I figured the Panthers would play a lot more deep zone and allow more short routes, but all those guys in the box to stuff the run left their cornerbacks overexposed.

That was one of Kam Chancellor's best games -- 11 tackles, 9 solo, big hits on Mike Tolbert and Benjamin, the near-blocks on field goals, and of course the pick-six.

Tom Gower: Story of Saturday? Teams' liabilities kept coming back to bite them. Baltimore had defensive back issues. This was known for a long time. New England forced guys like Matt Elam and Rashaan Melvin to play one-on-one in space and beat them. Carolina had offensive line issues, receiver issues, and safety issues, and Seattle took advantage of each of them -- the safeties with all the downfield passes, and, as we all pretty much expected, the receivers were mostly blanketed and Cam Newton, though he navigated the pressure very well for the most part, was under harassment regularly.

Vince Verhei: One other thing about this game, and the announcers mentioned this: Cam Newton was pretty good today. His big mistakes were BIG mistakes, but by and large, on the road, under lots of pressure, he made some big throws.

Cian Fahey: This was the best playoff performance of Russell Wilson's career and probably his best display of this season as a whole also. His three touchdown plays in particular stand out as each were a result of intelligent plays from the pocket, not to mention two precision passes that were delivered early to negate pressure.

Aaron Schatz: Finally, to respond to the Jimmy Johnson comment noted above, this is the paper from the Sloan conference that we ran in abridged form in Football Outsiders Almanac 2012:

Our results of offensive performance, as quantified by three different dependent variables, indicate that a big defensive play does not appear to improve the performance of the offense on the subsequent drive.

In other words, Jimmy Johnson's claim that offenses score more after an interception than they do after receiving a punt is nonsense.

Dallas Cowboys 21 at Green Bay Packers 26

Aaron Schatz: Not too surprised by all the success the Packers are having running the ball early. Their running game is just as effective as the Cowboys' running game; they just don't use it as much.

Cian Fahey: Early thoughts on Aaron Rodgers are that he is healthy enough to play, but clearly not where he typically is in terms of his movement. It's not handicapping the offense too much, but the Packers' offensive line is going to be under a lot more pressure than it usually is. Probably won't be a significant issue in this game because of the quality of the opponent, but hey, the little things can always have a big impact.

Aaron Schatz: Right. I don't think the Cowboys are getting too much pressure here... until a play where the snap came early and the Cowboys strip it as Rodgers attempts to get a handle on it.

Vince Verhei: Dez Bryant doesn't have a target in Dallas' first three drives. That's largely because Tony Romo has only thrown six passes, but those six passes have resulted in five completions for 71 yards and two scores. FOX is also doing a good job showing the coverage on Bryant, with guys double-chipping him, with a safety over the top. They're putting three or four guys on Bryant. It reminds of the 2005 Seahawks that beat the Panthers the NFC Championship Game by putting three or four guys on Steve Smith every play. The difference, obviously, is that Tony Romo is still dangerous throwing to Cole Beasley and Terrance Williams. Jake Delhomme to Keary Colbert and Ricky Proehl? Not so much.

Reason No. 1,535 I hate Joe Buck: he just called the Packers' offense "boring" because they're running a lot. God, he's terrible.

Scott Kacsmar: Joe Buck is also still on his one-man mission to blame the Dallas offense (but not the defense) for blowing the 26-3 lead against Green Bay last year.

I don't see how that Randall Cobb catch was upheld. Danny Amendola had one taken away yesterday that wasn't as obviously on the ground as this one.

Just a lot of bad mistakes in the last minute of this half. Very inaccurate spot by the refs on a Jason Witten catch. Dallas should have ran on third-and-1, and Romo fumbled the snap. Dan Bailey missed another field goal. Then the Dallas defense only had to defend the sideline and Cobb was wide-open for a big catch to set up a Mason Crosby field goal.

Huge difference between 17-7 and 14-10 at halftime, and now Green Bay gets the ball first.

Andrew Healy: Watching with the sound off here, but it sure looks like Rodgers is continuing from the Detroit game his inability to step into the throws by planting on the left leg. Hard to believe he can be as accurate as he has been without the ability to shift his weight onto the left leg, but his accuracy has also been below his norm.

On the Cowboys' last drive of the first half, a big reversal where Dallas has a first down on the Packers' 26-yard line, but then the bad spot is overturned on replay and they get a third-and-1 instead. The Cowboys called timeout, which both made it easier to review the play, and also meant that they would have rather had the clock run in the end. Garrett tried to get the timeout back, but it wasn't allowed. Then a bad play call caused the Cowboys to fail on the third down. No play action and a throw, even though DeMarco Murray had converted all three third-and-1 plays earlier in the half. I'm OK with the throw, but would have preferred play action.

And the timeout that the Cowboys only took because of the bad spot ends up costing them three points, perhaps. The Packers had enough time after Bailey's miss to drive into field goal range with a great throw and catch on a deep ball. Rodgers got it there, which was impressive enough, and then got a great toe-tap from Cobb.

Vince Verhei: The problems with the deep pass on third-and-1 after the replay review are two-fold. One, as noted, it's a much lower success rate than just letting DeMarco Murray run for the first down. Two, even if it had worked, they would have left plenty of time for Green Bay to answer with a score. As it turns out, they got no points AND left time for Green Bay to answer, which was pretty close to a worst-case scenario.

Aaron Schatz: I believe that was an audible. I think Romo yelled "kill," must have seen something that led him to try the deep throw. Not a coaching call.

I thought not just run, but also they could have run three stick routes there and found one of them open.

Andrew Healy: That's right, so I'm fine with the throw if Romo saw something. But any throw: A) should have been short, B) could have been play action.

Aaron Schatz: Huge turn of events as Julius Peppers strips DeMarco Murrray, who had nobody in front of him and would have easily gone for a touchdown. Instead, Packers get the ball at midfield. And they start running it down the Cowboys' throat. Nice 20-yard Eddie Lacy run with a big John Kuhn block.

Vince Verhei: That Green Bay drive stalls after a personal foul turns a red-zone third-and-1 into a third-and-16, and the Packers end up kicking a field goal to make it 14-13.

This is a weird, clunky game. Feels like the crowd is just now waking up, halfway through the third quarter.

And then I miss couple of plays when my local Fox affiliate starts randomly airing commercials during Dallas' next drive, and when they come back it's in standard definition. So that sucks.

[ad placeholder 4]

Scott Kacsmar: What a weekend for fumble luck.

Saturday: Eight fumbles, one lost.
Sunday: Six fumbles, two lost and we still have five-plus quarters to play today.

Nearly a disaster for the Packers with Cobb fumbling on the kick return, but Green Bay recovered. Rodgers finally left the pocket, but nearly threw an interception.

Aaron Schatz: Packers look like they're starting to move guys around a bit to get Randall Cobb away from Scandrick. And it works as he's up against Tyler Patmon and catches one for a 20-something-yard gain. A couple plays later they lined him up in the backfield and Dallas took a timeout.

Cian Fahey: The Cowboys run the ball a lot, but they go through these stretches where they seem to abandon the run even when the situation suggests they should be trying to run the ball. Up one in the fourth quarter is one of these situations. They're a balanced offense by the overall numbers, but not in terms of play-calling on a snap-by-snap basis.

Ben Muth: After Romo took back-to-back sacks I saw someone tweet something like "If Tannehill takes those two sacks like Romo, the Internet would have broken." I mean, this person was implying that Romo is not criticized as much as he should be on the Internet, and that Ryan Tannehill is the victim of an overly harsh media spotlight. This seems so wildly different from the world, as I've experienced it, that I had to bring it up. I'm not the crazy one here, right?

Aaron Schatz: Cowboys aren't bringing any pressure. They really need to consider some blitzing. Packers offensive line has them totally controlled.

Great decision by Jason Garrett to go for it on fourth-and-2 instead of trying a 50-yard field goal. I hate the play call there, once again, just like that third-and-1 earlier where Romo audibled. When you have to move the sticks, I want to move the sticks, not go deep. But holy crap what a leaping catch by Dez Bryant. Wow.

OK, I guess that was not a leaping catch by Dez Bryant. Overturned on replay.

Andrew Healy: Rodgers had time on that drive and he was also so accurate.

Ben, you are not crazy. Only Bizarro Romo would be loved on the Web. Real Romo has often been trashed unfairly.

The Cowboys correctly go for it on fourth-and-2, no matter what Troy Aikman thinks. Love these changes in Jason Garrett. Don't like the play call at all. Bryant almost bailed them out with an incredible catch, but lost the ball extending for the goal line. He really could have just secured the ball there rather than stretch for the touchdown.

Cian Fahey: I genuinely don't care about this game anymore. As soon as they overturned that Dez Bryant catch in the fourth quarter, even though I knew it was likely they would, I just can't feel good about watching this. The review process may as well be completely random because you can argue convincingly for either side of that play.

The NFL needs to fix this rule but we've all been calling for that for a long time so unless someone starts suing them...

Aaron Schatz: Oddly, the New York Times Fourth Down Bot thought the Cowboys should punt on that play. It had win expectancy at 22 percent with a field-goal try, 27 percent going for it, and 32 percent punting. I know Brian Burke has written in the past about how his model tends to like late-game punts when deep in opponent territory, but it seems awfully strange to me.

Andrew Healy: On the 32-yard line? That's pretty weird. That would mean presumably they'd want a punt on the 30-yard line, too. Wonder where the break-even point is. That seems like a call to tweak the model, although maybe I'm missing something.

Cian Fahey: New York Times Fourth Down Bot needs to be reminded who plays quarterback for the other team.

Scott Kacsmar: That's a catch, and hopefully this happening late in a playoff game will get the NFL to fix one of its biggest problems. How can they give Cobb that catch before halftime, but take this one away? There's no consistency and there isn't even logic in saying that a guy taking three steps and diving for the end zone didn't make a football move.

Aaron Schatz: Interestingly, Mike Pereira just tweeted that while he agrees with the reversal, the officials made a mistake by not resetting the clock to 4:32, so the Cowboys also lost 26 seconds towards coming back.

Vince Verhei: My takeaway here is that Dallas is losing because they threw deep incomplete passes on third-and-1 and fourth-and-2, with the best line in the league and the runner with more carries than anyone in years. Whether that's on Romo for calling audibles or Garrett for not having play-action plays ready to go is irrelevant. They called terrible plays at key times and left 6 to 14 points on the board.

And of course, their defense isn't good and can't pressure the quarterback and misses a lot of tackles. That was a big part of it too.

Tom Gower: The Dez play will take up a lot of oxygen, of course. Correct call by the rule, which has bothered me greatly ever since the Lance Moore two-point conversion in the Super Bowl.

The big story of the game should be just how incredibly well Aaron Rodgers played in the second half. He struggled at times in the first half, and was clearly never close to 100 percent at any point in the game. But he still made some absolutely incredible throws, most notably the strikes to Davante Adams and Richard Rodgers for touchdowns, and showed, as he did in the second half of the Week 17 game, even if he can't extend plays like he normally does, he's still a really damn good quarterback.

Andrew Healy: With all the deserved Rodgers love late in the broadcast, I hope Romo's performance doesn't get lost. 10.1 yards per attempt amid a Packers' pass rush that frequently got home (four sacks, eight knockdowns).

Aaron Schatz: Andrew, don't you remember Ben's post from earlier? Tony Romo is a player who simply does not take enough criticism on the Internets!

Tom Gower: Other points?

1. Dallas doesn't blitz much. They haven't blitzed much all year. I would have been surprised if they'd blitzed much today. Just not who they are. But they can't get pressure rushing four and with a hobbled quarterback, you'd think about blitzing a lot more than you usually do.

2. Like I mentioned last week, I thought the Cowboys getting plays in the pass game from someone outside of Dez Bryant would be crucial. Terrance Williams again delivered with a long touchdown catch-and-run. But in terms of minor receiving options who really stood out today, Davante Adams takes the cake. The Cowboys spent a lot of time matching up, and Adams had a talent edge on Sterling Moore. He had a quieter rookie season than I thought he might, but he really made a lot of plays today.

3. On both sides of the ball, like we saw yesterday with New England in particular, and we'll probably see Monday night in the college game, "defensive backs vs. tackling in space" is crucial.

Aaron Schatz: The best coaches change strategies to fit the weaknesses of their opponents. The Cowboys' defensive coaches did not.

Cian Fahey: Cowboys defensive coaches are also limited by having very little talent though.

Aaron Schatz: I asked Brian Burke if he had a link to what he had written in the past about his model suggesting punting late in games on the opponent's side of the field. Turns out it doesn't anymore. He has a newly refurbished model that unfortunately has not been plugged into the NY Times Fourth Down Bot yet. But this model comes out with 29 percent win expectancy for both the field goal and going for it -- again, not considering who is playing quarterback for the other team, which is of course important and would slant expectancy towards going for it -- and only 21 percent win expectancy for punting.

Indianapolis Colts 24 at Denver Broncos 13

Aaron Schatz: I never really thought of coverage as LaRon Landry's specialty. Having your strong safety beaten by the opposing tight end is one thing, though. I'm not sure why your strong safety is covering Demaryius Thomas in the end zone. 7-0, Broncos.

The Colts finally figure out how to get a pass rush: have the Broncos screw up a line call so nobody blocks your outside linebacker.

Interesting also that the Broncos have moved Aqib Talib off T.Y. Hilton early in the second quarter.

Vince Verhei: For a while there it looked like the Colts were actually going to use Scott's plan of abandoning the run entirely. Their first, what, 10 or 12 plays were all dropbacks? Turns out they were using the pass to set up the run and started mixing Dan Herron in. Which is probably smart, especially in the red zone, where Herron scored to put the Colts up 14-7.

Aaron Schatz: Broncos mostly back to using Talib on Hilton. And he is not having a good time of it.

Tom Gower: Well, he did give up the touchdown to Dwayne Allen...

The Broncos last year with their issues at safety at least had an excuse for keeping things relatively straightforward in the postseason. This year, not so much, which means it's all about Jack Del Rio.

Aaron Schatz: This whole weekend does so much to show why it makes sense for defensive backs to play tough, physical defense, with plenty of contact and holding. The refs are just going to flat-out miss it, probably more often than they actually call it. Broncos get away with one when T.J. Ward is clearly holding Coby Fleener. Then the Broncos get a break because the refs see Vontae Davis holding Emmanuel Sanders. Honestly, there was no difference between those plays except whether the officials saw it or not. You might as well just count on the human error, and play close.

Cian Fahey: This first half has been very weird. Peyton Manning is missing more receivers than he has in as long as I can remember, but conversely he's also throwing the ball down the field more than he has in as long as I can remember. The Colts have been very lucky to this point because Sanders and Demaryius in particular have been wide-open with regularity.

Vince Verhei: When did the Denver playbook become nothing but 9 routes?

Aaron Schatz: And on the other side of the ball, the Broncos pass rush just disappeared in the second quarter after being very strong on the Colts' first couple of drives.

Scott Kacsmar: Trying to hit these deep passes down the sideline is the same problem Denver had in Indianapolis last year. Not sure why that's like 50 percent of the offense today though.

Vince Verhei: For Pete's sake, Denver, even if you want to just throw deep, their are post routes and corners and slant-and-gos and out-and-ups. They're just throwing deep fades over and over. There was the deep completion to Julius Thomas that set up Denver's first touchdown. That one worked. But it hasn't worked since. And no, we're not the only ones who noticed.

Scott Kacsmar: The first series of the second half shows the drawback of having a pocket passer who never wants to scramble. Manning could have run for a first down but went for another downfield throw. Good throw, but good play by the corner to push Sanders out of bounds before he could get the second foot down. Quick three-and-out for the Broncos.

Cian Fahey: One of the worst decisions I've seen a quarterback make this year. Manning had 20 yards of space in front of him, his receiver was covered downfield on a difficult throw. You have to run there. Have to.

Aaron Schatz: What's interesting here is that the deep throws are open, but Manning is overthrowing them. But the short throws, the Colts seem to have covered and they're tackling guys without yards after the catch.

The entire game may be summarized by the fact that on a fourth-and-8 the Broncos had to have, Peyton Manning threw a 3-yard pass to C.J. Anderson in hopes he could get enough yards after the catch to get the conversion. Anderson's run earlier where he broke like 20 tackles was beautiful and Beast Mode-esque, but that drive was stunted by incomplete passes as well and the Broncos were stuck with a field goal.

Manning looked awful today. Chase Stuart put up on Twitter something about this being the first game where Manning is below 4.0 yards per pass since his rookie year. The Manning decline that people have been talking about on film the last few weeks, which never quite showed up in the numbers and wasn't really resulting in losses, well, today it showed up in the numbers big-time and resulted in a big, fat, season-ending L.

Cian Fahey: Have to credit the Colts for winning the game, but to me this said a lot more about the Broncos and Manning specifically.

The Colts are receiving a lot of credit for shutting down the offense and the coaching decisions, but how many big plays were open down the field that Manning simply missed? I wouldn't be optimistic about Indianapolis' chances going into Foxborough, but the Patriots aren't a juggernaut either.

At this stage, I still think the AFC is playing for the runner-up spot in the Super Bowl.

Scott Kacsmar: It's like the Broncos watched last year's game and picked out the things they did the worst, and tried to do exactly that in the first half. Very confusing game plan, and Manning missed too many throws. Wasn't a lack of arm strength since they were overthrows, but inaccuracy. Then the short stuff was defended very well, much like we have seen from teams that can play press coverage against Denver. I thought Sanders showed up today, but very disappointing game by Demaryius.

On the other side, Luck didn't have to be a one-man show. He wasn't even spectacular, just very good. The key was there being very little need to even say the names "Miller" and "Ware" today.

Aaron Schatz: Yes. I have no idea what happened to the Broncos pass rush today.

Vince Verhei: That was really sad to watch. Had to have been the worst game of Manning's career. There were some overthrows, there were some short-arms, there were balls thrown behind guys. There were bad decisions. There was a lack of pocket presence. Like, everything a quarterback can do badly, he did it. I would never, ever say that a guy "should" retire, and if I was a player I'd keep playing until they physically took away my helmet and barred me from the building. But if Manning plays like this in Week 1 of 2015, there are going to be calls for Brock Osweiler. And there should be.

And no, it wasn't just Manning. Demaryius Thomas couldn't catch anything. I had as many sacks as the Broncos did today. Etc., etc. It was a team-wide collapse.

Tom Gower: Concur with Vince. The Broncos lost as a team (that Colts drive that took up 8:14? Soul-crushing, and a terrible look for DVOA's No. 2 rush defense), with Peyton bearing at least his share of the blame. Kudos to Indianapolis, but like Cian said, I thought this was more about Denver's limitations than what the non-Luck Colts did well.

Aaron Schatz: The Broncos have a number of players heading to free agency, including both Demaryius Thomas and Julius Thomas, Wes Welker, Terrance Knighton, and Orlando Franklin. There are apparently reports that John Fox might be out and that Jack Del Rio and/or Adam Gase might get head-coaching jobs elsewhere. I don't expect Peyton to announce his retirement in the locker room but it's really set up here for him to call it a career. It's turnover time in Denver.

Scott Kacsmar: We've had 53 games of Manning in Denver, and this one looked much different than really any of them. Sure, they got their ass kicked in the Super Bowl against Seattle. The defense has had some big letdowns. The offense was shut down in St. Louis this year. But I'm not sure we ever seen a game with a performance so... bleak. Where there was just nothing working downfield or short. Not even 300 yards of offense. Only 13 points at home where they always scored at least 20. Most of Anderson's yards were his own effort and not due to the blocking. The pass rush favored Indianapolis, which you would never have expected given the talent involved. The rally never materialized. The eight-minute drive was a soul-crusher indeed, and from an offense that hasn't really been able to go on drives like that without Luck as the focus point. The Colts weren't even great in several areas (penalties, Pat McAfee's punts could have been better, Adam Vinatieri missed a makeable field goal, two questionable picks by Luck), but still won by 11.

That really looked like an "end of an era" game. I think John Fox will be gone after four years of having two 35-point playoff losses, the killer loss against Baltimore, and this "effort" today. The coordinators will probably bolt. They're going to have some big free agents. Is that a situation you want to start over with as a 39-year-old quarterback? Manning carried the Colts to a Super Bowl in 2009 with Jim Caldwell as a rookie coach, but he was 33 and in his prime. It's a long season and there's no guarantee he'll be healthy again down the stretch.

This might be it for Denver as we have known this team the last three years. And it's stunning to think that first year in 2012 was really the best shot this team had at a championship. I know, they didn't get past the second round, but that team was more likely to beat New England and then San Francisco than last year's team was to beat Seattle on any night, or this year's team in Foxborough next week and then maybe again with Seattle. That was the best defense they had, save for one play by a second-year safety that will live in infamy. That's why every opportunity is precious.

Aaron Schatz: Also, you know, when Seattle destroyed Manning, it was the best defense in football, bar none. Tonight it was... Greg Toler? Jonathan Newsome? Seattle whupped up on the Broncos' offense last year. Today it seemed more like the Broncos' offense just imploded on itself.

(No disrespect to the fact that there are good players on the Colts defense, of course: Vontae Davis and Cory Redding, to name two.)

Andrew Healy: That 41-0 loss to the Jets in 2002-03 would be tough to beat for Manning's worst game in the playoffs (14-of-31, 137 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT). And that was actually against the No. 20 pass defense and No. 27 defense overall. But this is more disappointing by quite a bit. Indy only had the No. 11 pass offense in 2002.

In 2014, the Broncos had the No. 3 passing offense and, as Aaron said, the Colts were good but not great on defense. It's one thing to get blown out by a historically good pass defense as the Broncos did last year, but to average 4.2 yards per play against this Colts defense? Wow.

Scott Kacsmar: I'm a huge believer in a team's weaknesses usually being their downfall in the playoffs.

Baltimore: the secondary did them in despite facing one of the most one-dimensional attacks a team has shown in a playoff game.

Carolina: general inferiority to Seattle too much to overcome.

Dallas: no stars at any level of the defense. Didn't tackle or rush the passer well. Didn't get the ball back at the end.

But Denver? I think they're the only team that lost in large part due to their strengths. Indy's special teams were supposed to be so much better, but Denver won that matchup if you ask me. Manning is always supposed to give you an advantage of figuring out the defense and getting into the best plays. That first half could not have been any more questionable in attacking the Colts where they're weak. He went right for their strengths, and even if the receivers were getting open, he wasn't making the deep throws he has made often this year, contrary to popular belief. And we have hit on the defense pretty hard already with Von Miller, DeMarcus Ware, and Aqib Talib all having very disappointing games despite their reputations. Same with Demaryius Thomas on that offense. Incredible talent after the catch, but couldn't even hang on to what may have been the only good screens the Broncos had set up all day.

I've studied them all thoroughly and I would probably say this is Manning's second-worst playoff game in between the 2003 AFC Championship Game (NE) and 2002 AFC Wild Card (NYJ). Always have to go with that Ty Law-dominated game (four picks) first, because that's the only time Manning wasted what wasn't a brutal performance by the rest of his team. Jets game, he had like seven drops and was down 17-0 in no time, but that was just a miserable game all around. Jets were a much better team going into that one. Manning didn't throw a pick until it was 34-0 in the fourth quarter.

Andrew Healy: That is the other one and on a bigger stage, but a legitimately awesome Patriots defense, too. No. 2 overall and No. 2 against the pass.

Rob Weintraub: Boy that Andy Dalton sure does stink in the playoffs, huh?

Oh, that was Peyton Manning? And all Denver's skill players were healthy? Interesting...

Let's not forget John Fox's health scare from last season -- all the more reason for him to look in the mirror and call it a very fine career.


339 comments, Last at 14 Jan 2015, 11:31pm

#1 by big10freak // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:44am

I think there is a misunderstanding of the role of arm strength. Having true arm strength means you can both throw the ball some distance but also have the control to place the ball within a certain radius.

In these exchanges about Manning this point has been lost as people post past one another.

It is also a consideration that there are 'x' throws in a qb's arm in a given season once the qb gets older. Don't know if the facts bear it out but certainly every learned person I have heard on the topic believes this is the case.

And weather as always is a concern as a factor which did not seem to be an issue yesterday.

AS someone who watched Favre regularly fade later in the season and see his accuracy downfield all but vanish what I saw yesterday was a grim flashback

Points: 0

#4 by Eddo // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:50am

Agreed. It was sad watching Manning struggle so badly with his downfield accuracy. Hopefully he had a worse injury than reported, so that a better version comes back next year.

Points: 0

#11 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:06am

That was the first game I really noticed him missing badly on the deep throws. The last few games he seemed to be okay on his accuracy when going deep.

To me it seems like the team overall was just badly prepared, the focus on the run through the end of the season and not practicing during the bye may have added some more rust. Obviously the plan of trying to build a team that can succeed when Peyton plays poorly didn't work out very well.

Points: 0

#141 by Dired // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:57am

Yeah, overthrowing players doesn't indicate arm strength by itself. It can even mean the opposite; just heaved-up prayers with no control or accuracy that a stronger arm could aim precisely. And then the last two minutes; they didn't even pretend to do the usual quick-outs and medium sideline passes. Like a pitcher who's in too long, his arm was spent and by the end of the game there was just nothing left. But those overthrows early were symptoms, not aberrations.

You're down two scores, have no time outs and two minutes on the clock. Dinking-and-dunking between the hashmarks is just a more dramatic kneel-down. Manning knew that, but what were they going to do? Put in Osweiller?

Points: 0

#306 by Scott Kacsmar // Jan 12, 2015 - 7:47pm

Watched the first half throws again and I still don't see the lack of arm strength on those deep shots. He actually threw a few spirals too. Just kept overthrowing the ball, but he wasn't wildly off. Look how close this one was to Sanders

Most of the misses were on line, in bounds, but just overthrown (within 1-5 yards). He only missed out of bounds at the end of the half, but that was because he was out of timeouts on the first pass and the second was nearly picked by Vontae.

Points: 0

#2 by Eddo // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:48am

"He really could have just secured the ball there rather than stretch for the touchdown."


My interpretation is that it was correctly reversed. The ball hit the ground and bounced up in the air, and I think the leaping nature of the catch means that the "going to the ground" rules apply.

I can see why some people think that his two steps showed control, though. It's close.

What I don't buy is the "he reached out for the goal line, that's a 'football move'" argument; either the two steps meant he had control, or he had to go all the way to the ground. What he did with his arms was irrelevant (except in the sense that had he focused on securing the ball, it would have been a totally clean catch).

Points: 0

#7 by Joshua Northey // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:54am

These are basically my thoughts as well. A very tough call to have at that point in the game. Would have been nice to see GB need to drive for the FG for the win.

Points: 0

#12 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:12am

I can see why some people think that his two steps showed control, though. It's close.

The disagreement that I have here (with those people) is that I don't think those were steps. They were stumbles. He couldn't've just stopped there - it's not like anyone pushed him, or made him fall. He was falling the entire way, so this idea that those steps showed he had control just doesn't make sense to me. Just because your feet touch the ground like that doesn't mean that you're taking steps.

He caught the ball, while falling, and the ball hits the ground. The only way you can show that you have control of the ball in that case is if the ball doesn't move (because since you're both falling, you don't know if you're in control of the ball or you're both just falling together).

I don't get the "bad rule" part. If you want to change the rule, I don't think you'd make it so that this was a catch. That's just nuts - it would make a ton of plays that people think of as "obvious" incompletes complete passes.

I think you'd change it so that if a wide receiver catches a ball while falling, if the ball hits the ground, it's not a catch, period. I'd be fine with that, too. That would be more clear-cut to fans. I think the current rule is perfectly clear cut to players, too, and I think Bryant is fooling himself if he thinks he caught that ball. He knew he lost control of it. That's why the thing popped up, after all.

What he did with his arms was irrelevant (except in the sense that had he focused on securing the ball, it would have been a totally clean catch).

Completely agree. If he hadn't been clearly falling while doing that, then it would've mattered. But when they say "stretching for the goal line is a football move" they don't mean "stretching while falling."

Points: 0

#16 by Steve in WI // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:19am

Setting aside the issue of whether the call was reversed correctly according to the current rules, I don't see how any football fan can argue that the rule should remain as it is. There are way, way too many aspects of the game in which fans can no longer guess what the officials are going to say - pass interference, unnecessary roughness, holding, roughing the passer, etc. But anyone who watches football would look at a play like that, or the Calvin Johnson catch in 2010, and say "yup, he caught the ball."

I'm really questioning whether I should continue to devote so much time to a game that so often comes down to the officials instead of the players on the field.

Points: 0

#40 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:43am

But anyone who watches football would look at a play like that, or the Calvin Johnson catch in 2010, and say "yup, he caught the ball."

The Calvin Johnson catch is way harder, in my opinion - to me, it was just a freaking stupid thing for Johnson to do, much like DeSean Jackson dropping the ball before crossing the goal line. If you're falling while catching the ball, secure the ball to your damn body, period, end of discussion.

But I really disagree on the Bryant play. I don't see the controversy. He catches the ball while falling, shifts it around to the point where he's barely holding it, and then when it hits the ground, it's obvious that he wasn't controlling it. That's an incomplete. Literally, as soon as I saw the ball pop up I thought "that doesn't look right." Then on the replay, you see the ball move when he hits the ground, and it's obvious he wasn't in control of the ball anymore, which is why the thing pops up in the first place.

edit: I should repeat though, I have no problem with changing the rule, either, but the obvious way to change it is that if the ball hits the ground while falling, it's incomplete, period, and then you'd have to define 'falling' as ending when the player comes to a stop on the ground. That's no longer controversial at all.

Points: 0

#54 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:54am

But it's not about "falling". Johnson had control of the ball, took two steps, was in the end zone already, was pushed, went to the ground, and placed the ball on the ground.

Usually all you have to do in the end zone is have control of the ball and cross the plane. But with the new rule, you have to "go through the process" of finishing the catch. Of course, when "the process" of finishing the catch is done is itself subject to interpretation. The NFL is big on trying to remove ambiguity from the rules interpretation process, but they didn't do themselves any favors here.

As for Dez Bryant, he consciously took his right hand off the ball to cushion himself when he hit the ground. Big mistake. He later claimed that he was doing so to extend the ball into the end zone. Regardless of his actual motivation, with the current rule set, he's got to keep that right hand on the ball. There's no doubt in mind that, had he done that, the ball would not have jostled when he hit the ground and it would have been a completion.

Points: 0

#73 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:08am

I don't know what you mean by "Johnson was pushed."

He wasn't pushed. He didn't even take two steps. He was in the air when he caught the ball, and he landed off balance, pivoted on one leg, and fell to the ground. No one touched him (okay, #35 might've brushed his hip with his shoulder, but #35 was falling as well, so it's not like it was intentional), and yeah, he was clearly falling.

The video is still on, if you'd like to check.

Points: 0

#136 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:54am

I don't understand your point, then. You said all you have to do is have control, and break the plane. But Johnson never had control. You can't gain control while falling - it happens when you hit the ground, and show that you had control the entire way.

The goofiness with the Calvin Johnson play is that he chose to make the ball hit the ground, but that's similar to a player stretching the ball out to try to gain more yardage - when you do that, you have to maintain control as the ball hits the ground, otherwise you lost it. Where fans disagree with the rule is that Johnson wasn't trying to gain an advantage, he was just being stupid.

Points: 0

#152 by krugerindustri… // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:19pm

"you can't gain control while falling" seems rather arbitrary. and I don't know why both can't be true at the same time. Johnson had the ball in one hand and waved it around. If that is not control, then I have no idea.

I wonder though, how much attention receivers pay to their position specific rules. The Bryant play is pretty conclusive given the rule.

Points: 0

#164 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:33pm

Well, I should've probably said "you can't show that you have control of the ball while falling."

Regardless of the Lambeau is not a vacuum arguments below, there is physics involved. If I throw a football at a piece of paper, the piece of paper is probably going to stay in contact with the football all the way to the ground, at which point the football is going to move, and they separate. The piece of paper didn't control the football when the football hit the ground, but in the air, looking at it on film, it might look like the paper had control of the ball in flight.

So when someone catches the ball when falling, you can't tell how tightly they're holding it... until it hits the ground. If it moves then, it's an incomplete pass (except for some weird 'second act' crap that they added that honestly I think is garbage - that, in my opinion, makes it a ton more open to interpretation).

Remember that "when the football hits the ground" isn't arbitrary - that's what makes a pass incomplete. If you catch the ball in the air, try to tuck it in, and it slips out and hits the ground, everyone calls that incomplete. So "falling" in this case isn't arbitrary either, because that's what the ball is doing, too - falling to the ground.

Points: 0

#166 by Andrew B // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:35pm

Johnson had control of the ball, took two steps, was in the end zone already, was pushed, went to the ground, and placed the ball on the ground

1) Johnson didn't have control of the ball (it was moving in his hands as he fell because the Packers defender contacted his left arm while he was in the air). Did you actually watch the slow motion replay?

2) He wasn't in the endzone (after being contacted in the air, his knee was on the ground at the one yardline, so had he possessed the ball, he would have been down at the 1). Again, did you watch the replay?

3) He didn't take two or three steps (having your feet touch the ground while flailing in the air falling to the ground under the impetus of gravity is not a step). Bryant never regained his balance after leaping, so everything that followed was him going to the ground.

Usually all you have to do in the end zone is have control of the ball and cross the plane.

4) You've always had to control the ball all the way to the ground if you are leaping to make a catch. Nothing new here. The only way around that is to establish control prior to entering the endzone and then to enter the endzone in the air ala Michael Vick, in which case you can land out of bounds, fumble the ball, etc. as long as you break the plane inside the pylons before losing the ball.

The Original Andrew

Points: 0

#245 by TecmoBoso // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:29pm

I don't think Dez caught the ball. It clearly hits the ground. If the ground isn't there, he drops it. Thus Dez never had possession. This controversy is getting pretty crazy... it wasn't a catch even without invoking the Calvin Johnson non-catch rule. I think people are getting caught up on awesome of a play it almost was (jumping that high and nearly catching the ball). If it was a run of the mill play (ie no jump, just some arm extension), with him not being able to hold on, are we talking about this right now?

The Calvin TD is way more controversial. Johnson catches it, has position (plus two feet), and is across the goal line. TD right? No because he drops the ball to celebrate. Some how having position in the end zone doesn't count on that play (how many times does the ball cross the plane only for a defender to come and knock it out, but it's ruled a TD because the player has position as the ball crosses the plane; for some reason that didn't matter on the Cavlin TD).

Points: 0

#75 by justanothersteve // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:09am

I don't get the "bad rule" part. If you want to change the rule, I don't think you'd make it so that this was a catch. That's just nuts - it would make a ton of plays that people think of as "obvious" incompletes complete passes.

I think you'd change it so that if a wide receiver catches a ball while falling, if the ball hits the ground, it's not a catch, period. I'd be fine with that, too. That would be more clear-cut to fans. I think the current rule is perfectly clear cut to players, too, and I think Bryant is fooling himself if he thinks he caught that ball. He knew he lost control of it. That's why the thing popped up, after all.

The ball hitting the ground not being a catch regardless of anything else used to be the rule. It was overturned because of what most everyone thought of as a catch, but by rule wasn't a catch in a highly visible game. (I think it was a playoff game 14-15 years ago between the Rams and Bucs, with the Buc receiver falling back and the ball hitting the ground. But I'm getting old and the details are fuzzy.) Twenty years ago it wouldn't have been a catch - except there was no challenge and the call would have stood.

Points: 0

#167 by tammer.raouf // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:37pm

What I don't understand, even in the context of the rule, is how a player has to secure the ball in the process of "going to the ground" even AFTER they player is technically "down." In both the CJ and Dez catches, the ball is secure in hand and a part of the player's body that would make them down by contact is on the ground - for CJ, his ass, and for Dez, his knees and elbow. So if those body parts determine a player's down-ness, how is it that they need to continue to hold onto the ball after those same parts have touched the ground? It implies that a player can't advance a ball after certain parts of their body have touched the ground because they are down AND YET they are still capable of losing possession! IMO, that's a necessarily unfair part of the interpretation of the rule, and therefore, incorrect.

tl;dr - If a player can't move the ball forward after their elbows, knees, hips, or back touch the ground, how is it they are still able to lose possession?

Points: 0

#173 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:44pm

Dez didn't lose possession. The ground showed that he didn't have possession, because he didn't have control of the ball at the point when it hit the ground. So he never could've been declared down.

Same thing as if a player catches a ball while lying on the ground - they don't get any special advantage for lying on the ground. They still have to establish control of it, which is half the reason why fumble piles happen.

Points: 0

#200 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:28pm

That's like saying if a running back stumbles and then the ball gets knocked out when it hits the ground after his knee is down it would be a fumble because the ground shows he didn't have possession.

Points: 0

#213 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:48pm

How in the world are those two the same? A running back is down once he has possession of the ball (control + in the field of play) and the whole "body part hit the ground" thing is satisfied.

The running back gains possession of the ball when it's handed to him, and he establishes control (ball moves with him). A player who is falling in the act of catching the ball can't show that he establishes control except by preventing the ground from causing the ball to move (or by some weird 'second act' thing, or other obvious caveats like coming to rest with the ball never touching the ground).

Points: 0

#229 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:12pm

If he's stumbling maybe he's already lost control of the ball because he wasn't holding it tightly enough when it made contact with the ground.

Points: 0

#236 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:23pm

But the running back already had possession. If he stumbles, downs himself, then loses the ball when it hits the ground (but it doesn't move until he hits the ground) there's no evidence that he lost possession prior to downing himself. So he's down.

If a wide receiver, falling while catching the ball, can't maintain control when the ball hits the ground, he never had control in the first place (again excepting goofy 'second act' crap).

The difference is the state the two of them begin in: one had possession (the RB), the other did not (the WR).

Points: 0

#246 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:30pm

No. The difference is the amount of time you require to establish possession. What if the RB trips as soon as he receives the hand-off and the ball pops out after he's on the ground. Is that a fumble or is he down by contact?

Points: 0

#254 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:45pm

That's a broad enough description of something happening that I don't think I could say either way. It depends. To be comparable to a WR catching the ball, he'd have to basically be falling when he got the ball (so he'd have to trip before), and bobble the ball as he received it (because that's what happens here), then it would move when he hits the ground. I think most people would call that a fumble.

That being said, again, it's not completely comparable, because RBs receive the handoff basically in their gut - so if they tuck it, it's a lot more obvious if they have control or not.

I mean, if a guy gets the handoff in his gut, stumbles, and the ball never moves from a tucked position as he's going down, and then moves when it hits the ground, I think that's down by contact. But if a WR gets a ball in midair, tucks it into his gut, and it moves when he hits the ground, that probably still would be 'down by contact' because of the weird "second act" thing. So maybe that 'second act' thing isn't so terrible...

Points: 0

#263 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:51pm

Right. So I think we're approaching agreement in terms of how a receiver can potentially create possession in the air. We just seem to differ on whether what Dez did was actually a controlled 'second act'; it looks like one to me but I could see how you may disagree.

Points: 0

#274 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:15pm

That's the inherent subjectivity with how the rule is written; two people with perfect objectivity can have entirely different subjective views about whether a movement is a controlled second act. The only problem I have (and it isn't a big problem, given I don't think a perfect rulebook can be written) is whether that subjective opinion should be basis for overturning the original call.

I'd rather have replay review than not have it, but it can't be expected to solve all disputes. I think this falls under the category of Random Stuff that Makes the Losing Teams' Fans Wail and Gnash Their Teeth, While the Winning Teams Fans' Congratulate Themselves for Rooting for Such Obviously Fine Fellows.

Points: 0

#275 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:21pm

I agree that the nature of football means you can probably never remove the subjective opinion. It would probably also be difficult to create a better rule that wouldn't also involve the refs going to replay for every catch. If anything this should teach receivers that if you're going to ground you better make sure you're holding on to the ball and not trying to do any extra reaching.

Points: 0

#294 by anotherpatsfan // Jan 12, 2015 - 4:15pm

If the RB hitting the ground is not caused by contact with a defensive player and the ball pops out when he hits the ground, it is a fumble, and not down by contact. If he is contacted by a defensive played and the ball starts coming out before he hits the ground, that is a fumble too. If he stumbles, touches a defensive player and falls, getting a knee or an elbow or whatever down before the ball pops out, it is down by contact.

I think all that is apples and oranges with what happened with Bryant. They ruled he was going to the ground while making the catch. Ball pops out of his hand when it (the ball) hits the ground. The way the rule was written, end of story. No "football move" or any of that crap (Rich Eisen should know better) when going to the ground If you want to argue he was not going to the ground while making the catch that's one thing, but once they ruled from the replay he was going to the ground, the bobble caused by the ground dictates incomplete pass.

Points: 0

#15 by Led // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:14am

The "football move" (if there was one -- it appears reasonable people can disagree) was taking two steps (albeit stumbling steps) and then diving for the goal line while switching the ball into one hand for maximum extension. That looked, to me, a lot like something a receiver does after catching a ball near the pylon. And it's something a receiver who has not controlled the ball cannot do. If Bryant just stumbled twice, hit the ground while trying to secure the ball, and the ball popped out then it would be a much easier call. So the diving and reaching out are key aspects of the so-called "football move" in my view.

Points: 0

#23 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:25am

I think holding the ball one-handed should count as control and that both this and the Calvin Johnson 'catch' should have been good. There are already a lot of grey areas with the rules and I don't think the Calvin Johnson rule really simplifies anything.

However, it's somehow fitting that the Cowboys lose this game based on a controversial rule based on a Lions receiver. Karmic balance is restored to the universe.

Points: 0

#25 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:26am

How can stumbling be a move? You can't choose whether or not you stumble or stand still. Gravity's forcing it on you. The only choice you're making is to move forward a little or crumple helplessly into the ground, and to be honest I don't even think you have that choice. I don't see how you can call that a "move," as opposed to a slightly more graceful "fall."

And shifting the ball around while falling can't be a move, either - I can play hackeysack with a ball that's falling all I want, but I don't control it. If Bryant really controlled the ball, it wouldn't've moved when it hit the ground.

The thing is, after the game, Bryant said "I was just reaching for the end zone." And that's the problem: stretching the ball out is risky, and he shouldn't be doing it while falling. You do that, and it's easy to lose control of the ball, and if you lose control while falling, you never had it in the first place.

Points: 0

#29 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:33am

Well the ball didn't move until it hit the ground so it seemed like he was in control of it. The problem with the rule is that it extends what's normally required for a catch, it would be like if a back lost the ball while reaching for the end zone with a knee down and it being ruled a fumble rather than down wherever the ball was when the knee touched because he didn't 'secure' it when going to the ground.

Points: 0

#37 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:40am

Well the ball didn't move

Yeah it did - it was falling. It didn't look like it was falling relative to his hands, but, y'know, physics. Everything falls at the same rate.

You have to keep the ball fixed when it hits the ground because if it does move, that means you weren't controlling it in the first place. It doesn't extend what's normally required for a catch - keeping the ball from moving when it hits the ground doesn't require you to do anything more. If you have control of the ball, it won't move. If you don't, it will.

Points: 0

#45 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:45am

"It doesn't extend what's normally required for a catch"

Funny, I see guys bobble/recatch catches all the time

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#53 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:52am

That's not what I said. I'm saying that the rule of a caught possession is in fact extended or defined different on circumstance. Why is possession (upright) nearly immediate on a bobble/recatch? But not on a "stumbling dive" {or more specifically, See Calvin Johnson debacle}?

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#114 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:35am

Because if you're falling, you're not in control of yourself, much less the ball. If you're upright, and you bobble it, and recatch it, as soon as the ball stops moving relative to you, you've got control of yourself, and control of the ball.

I think people have a weird memory of the CJ catch - if you rewatch it, the controversial part is the fact that CJ made the ball touch the ground by himself, which was stupid, mind you. He was definitely falling to the ground the entire way.

Points: 0

#122 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:42am

See, I disagree. I see players make diving catches (intentional falling) all the time. They are in complete control of their body, to do so- they choose their leap point/time, their angle, their arm extension, etc based on years of practice.

I also players upright who are not in control of their body/self. If they were, for example, they wouldn't tear ACL, hamstring, etc without contact in the open field on a cut, etc. Hell, ignore injury, they wouldn't get tackled by the "turf monster".

It's a stupid rule that has some merit, but needs massive revision. It's patently stupid to say the ground can cause you to "not have (ever had) possession" , but on the other hand that it can't cause you to lose possession when you did have it.

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#147 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:11pm

A falling player's position is not in his control. We don't live in the land of Super Mario Bros. physics - once you leave your feet, the position of your center-of-mass is entirely (excluding minor aerodynamic effects) in the hands of Sir Isaac Newton.

An upright player's position is in their full control.

It's patently stupid to say the ground can cause you to "not have (ever had) possession"

The ground doesn't cause you to not ever have had possession. It shows that you didn't have it at the time the ball hit the ground. So no catch.

I think what most people want is that if the ball's not moving, relative to you, when your feet hit the ground, that's a catch. But really, there are a ton of examples of catches that would look like that, but no one would agree they are a catch.

Points: 0

#153 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:19pm

So since a diving/falling player is not in control of their body (your argument), all catches made are therefore purely the result of luck?

While many NFL players may not be able to solve a FBD or understand the derivation of Newton's equations of motion, do you really think that after years of practice, training, etc they don't understand how to control their leaps/dives under the EXPERIENCE of FEELING gravity?

Also, you ignored my point. So if an upright player is in control of their body (more than a "falling player") why do they slip? Get tackled by turf monster? Tear a muscle? THEY'RE IN CONTROL OF THEIR BODY, REMEMBER???

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#155 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:22pm

So since a diving/falling player is not in control of their body (your argument), all catches made are therefore purely the result of luck?

No, it means you can't establish completely control over the motion of the ball. You don't have complete control over the motion of your own body at that point, so showing that the ball has the same motion as your body doesn't establish that you have complete control over it.

Also, you ignored my point. So if an upright player is in control of their body (more than a "falling player") why do they slip? Get tackled by turf monster? Tear a muscle? THEY'RE IN CONTROL OF THEIR BODY, REMEMBER???

You're really taking this ideal of "control" too far. The point is that they need to show that the motion of the ball is completely due to them, and not out of their control. You can't do that while falling.

Points: 0

#161 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:30pm

How do astronauts ever hold and manipulate objects in the space shuttle while in orbit?

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#168 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:40pm

Google translate result for the above comment returns:

"Point conceded"

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#201 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:29pm

google translate: a guy lost an argument so badly he had to start coming up with absurd zero gravity scenarios to continue arguing.

Points: 0

#210 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:43pm

I see that you missed the point where it was argued that a person who is "falling" cannot control their body or an object.

But do go on with your e-whiteknighting.

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#239 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:26pm

Yes or no:

Do you stand by your claim that falling people cannot control their bodies and/or objects?

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#251 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:37pm

Yes, whether your universal claim has obvious
exceptions that disprove it is.... pointless.... I see.

Hope you never go skydiving.

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#256 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:47pm

"You can write the rulebook for Football in Zero-Gravity, OK? Would that make you happy?"

actually translates to:

"prior statements were not intended to be universal statements, but only intended to apply to the game of football."

Points: 0

#259 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:49pm

So million dollar athletes are less physically talented than say....... pretty much everyone else alive that isn't disabled. Fascinating.

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#158 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:29pm

In most cases the receiver and the ball are not moving in the same direction prior to their contact. So a receiver going to the ground exerts a force on the ball to bring it into their control. It's then possible for the impact with the ground to exert another force that knocks it out. I understand that it's hard to judge when a player has 'control' which is part of the reason why this rule exists, however, there is a lot more to it than just the player and the ball falling to ground at the same rate.

Points: 0

#169 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:40pm

I understand that it's hard to judge when a player has 'control' which is part of the reason why this rule exists, however, there is a lot more to it than just the player and the ball falling to ground at the same rate.

Them falling at the same rate means that you can't tell how much force the player is exerting on the ball by the time it reaches the ground. So when the ground whacks the ball, and it moves, it's obvious that the player wasn't holding it that tightly.

It's the same thing as if a player is catching the ball, turns, and gets hit, knocking the ball free and hitting the ground. The impact from the other player shows that the player didn't have control of the ball, so it's an incomplete pass.

If the player catches the ball, turns, and is running upfield for a bit, then obviously they had control of the ball since they controlled its motion.

I definitely agree it's hard to judge, though. Which is part of the reason I find this "outrage" from some people hilarious. There's no way you can write a rule for catches such that everyone will be happy. And I *really* don't get the outrage here. The Calvin Johnson play is 100 times worse than the Bryant catch.

Points: 0

#177 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:54pm

I think that given the current rules the call was correct. I just think that the rule is dumb and I agree that the Calvin Johnson is a much worse example.

The falling at the same rate is a bad example because the player and the ball are initially moving at different rates and the player isn't a solid body. So it's possible to determine how much force the player has put on the ball, with Dez it looked like he brought the ball under his control and then had it knocked out by the ground (which is incomplete by the current rules). Though if there was a rule change they would have to be careful with what it was because it's difficult to define 'control'.

Points: 0

#186 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:06pm

The falling at the same rate is a bad example because the player and the ball are initially moving at different rates and the player isn't a solid body. So it's possible to determine how much force the player has put on the ball

It's possible to determine how much force the player put on the ball to move it to himself, but not after it's there. And it wouldn't take very much force to move the ball to himself at all. That amount of force is pathetic, since it's not like the ball weighs a lot.

Actually, a good question would be this: suppose it wasn't Bryant hitting the ground that made the ball move. Suppose another player had come in, and whacked at the ball as Bryant started to stretch it out, knocking it to the ground. Would that be incomplete? If so, the ground exerted much less force than that, and it caused the ball to move - so there's no way you could say Bryant had control.

Points: 0

#193 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:18pm

Well I think his one armed extension is an example of control because he start moving the ball forward faster then it was going to ground, assuming he wasn't down when it came out it would have been fumble.

The rule as it stands does bring some consistency between impacts with the ground and other players and prevents the refs from having to go to replay more often so it does have some merit. It's always going to be hard to judge control especially without replay so some controversy is inevitable.

Points: 0

#248 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:32pm

It's some control - I wouldn't call it complete control. I mean, I can bat a hackey-sack forward pretty easily. You don't need complete control to move a ball like that.

To give a good example of a decision I don't agree with, the Lance Moore 2 point conversion in the Super Bowl, in my mind, should have been incomplete. There, he catches the ball falling down, pulls it around (but he doesn't even really pull it towards him) tries to steady it, it starts bobbling in his hands, and then he gets hit by another player and it knocks out. That, I don't get - he obviously didn't have control of the ball if a player bumping into him knocks it out, and he didn't even have a chance to make a move or anything between him hitting the ground and the player hitting the ball.

It's always going to be hard to judge control especially without replay so some controversy is inevitable.

Yup. I do find it hilarious that so many people are saying "everyone looks at that and thinks it's a catch." No, they don't. They clearly don't. So pretending the rule is awful is just nuts.

Points: 0

#182 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:03pm

Watching the play again he stops the ball from going forward, pulls it into his body, transfers it to one hand, as he body hits the ground makes an effort to stretch forward (so the ball and his body aren't even falling at the same speed), then the ground knocks it out.

So yes he should have held on better, and yes under the current rules it seems like this was correctly rules incomplete. But everything about this particular plays 'feels' like a pass successfully controlled by the receiver prior to his impact with the ground.

Points: 0

#123 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:42am

As you state yourself ball control is relative to the player. It doesn't matter if they are falling and not in control of their body relative to the ground as long as the ball is in control relative to their body.

Points: 0

#49 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:48am

Well the ball is allowed to move when it hits the ground provided that it still looks like you have control. Hitting the ground when falling is a big force; I think it's dumb to say that it's impossible to have control of the ball and then have the ground knock it out.

And sure everything falls at the same rate, but the ball wasn't moving in his hand in any direction after he transferred it to that hand. It's pretty unlikely that he just happened to match the rate his body was falling so that both his hands and the ball were falling together in a perfectly synchronous fashion.

Points: 0

#57 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:59am

The ball is allowed to move and it's allowed to hit the ground. It's just not allowed to do both.

My issue with the replay was that, even though common sense says that the ground caused the jostling, I don't see how that was visible in the replay. I thought replay was supposed to be reserved for obvious mistakes. But the de facto policy seems to be to err in one direction with the initial call (catches, turnovers) and then get the call right with the replay. Since you cannot use replay to declare a non-catch a catch, the initial call is made a catch and then the replay official is given the task of overturning it.

I'm also baffled at how an official standing five feet away, looking straight at the area where Bryant hit the ground, could make the initial call of a complete catch. He was right there!

Points: 0

#66 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:07am

There have been situations where the ball both moves and hits the ground and is considered a catch. Usually this is when someone gets two hands on the ball moves a bit but their hands never really come off the ball. In this case if the ball moved when hitting the ground but Dez's hands never came off of it I think it would be considered a catch, it was the bobble off the ground that was a problem.

And I do agree there are problems with replay, though I do think it's generally better than it used to be. The problem is that somethings still aren't reviewable and that the NFL doesn't have enough camera angles to really allow the 'let it play out and fix anything on replay' mentality of the refs.

Points: 0

#80 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:12am

And sure everything falls at the same rate, but the ball wasn't moving in his hand in any direction after he transferred it to that hand.

Think of it like baseball - if the ball just lands in your glove while diving to make a catch, but you don't close your glove, the ball bounces right out, because you didn't control it.

It's pretty unlikely that he just happened to match the rate his body was falling so that both his hands and the ball were falling together in a perfectly synchronous fashion.

That's... actually the way that gravity works.

Points: 0

#89 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:19am

If you drop things with no other forces being applied, like I said the ball wasn't moving in other direction relative to his hand either.

Points: 0

#132 by Bright Blue Shorts // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:53am

Pat - you might want to watch this. As far as I know, and despite what Bears fans will tell you, Lambeau isn't a vacuum

Points: 0

#139 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:56am

Yes, but you're not going to see any difference over a few feet.

Also, hilariously, there's a point in that video that accidentally still shows an in-air drop and presents it as if it was vacuum. See if you can find it.

Points: 0

#93 by The Powers That Be // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:22am

The rule doesn't extend what's normally required for a catch. It is only supposed to apply when the things that are normally required for a catch have not yet been achieved when the receiver hits the ground. In this case, the CJ rule should never have been applied, since Dez had already achieved all the criteria of establishing possession before he ever touched the ground. It was a misapplication of the rule, not a problem with the rule.

Points: 0

#103 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:26am

If he had "fumbled it" before hitting the ground, would it have been ruled a fumble ?

I think so....

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#108 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:29am

Definitely not. We've seen plenty of examples of that over the years. Catch the ball while falling, lose the ball while still falling - no fumble.

Points: 0

#105 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:28am

since Dez had already achieved all the criteria of establishing possession before he ever touched the ground

Possession requires you establish control of the ball in the field of play. You obviously can't do that without touching the ground, since you can't establish your position in-bounds without touching the ground - and in order to show control of the ball while falling, you have to maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground.

Points: 0

#112 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:34am

" since you can't establish your position in-bounds without touching the ground"

So people who run the ball in untouched and upright never have possession?

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#116 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:37am

I have no idea what this statement was supposed to mean. Someone who catches the ball, and runs in to the endzone, upright, clearly have control of the ball (it's moving with them, and they're controlling their own movement) and are in bounds (both feet are in the field of play). What's the problem here?

Points: 0

#124 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:44am

You had replied to a commentthat Dez had possession prior to hitting the ground (this implies his body parts excluding his feet)

Your comment said that the body had to hit the ground to define possession. I gave an example whereby it doesn't.

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#154 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:20pm

But the comment that he(she) made that you replied to were ignoring them.

See phrase "hit the ground"

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#156 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:24pm

I replied to:

"since Dez had already achieved all the criteria of establishing possession before he ever touched the ground"

and like I said, it's impossible to achieve all of the criteria of establishing possession before you hit the ground.

Points: 0

#242 by Tomlin_Is_Infallible // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:28pm

So if a receiver dives, catches it, gets pinballed by another player, lands on their feet, and runs it into the endzone?

The standard is the standard!

Points: 0

#170 by Andrew B // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:41pm

The ball moved in the air when the Packers defender contacted first his arm and then the ball. The ball moving means no control. Bryant attempted to control the ball with one hand going to the ground to brace himself with his right hand for impact, so he further moved the ball by letting go of it with his right hand. The illusion that his left hand alone controlled it was shattered when it moved on hitting the ground. That's why every NFL officiating person former and current said it was incomplete.

Really, just watch the video.

The Original Andrew

Points: 0

#276 by Led // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:21pm

"If Bryant really controlled the ball, it wouldn't've moved when it hit the ground."

Players that indisputably have possession and control (because, for example, they took a handoff and ran 30 yards!) lose control when they hit the ground all the time. What we're trying to determine is whether Bryant had control via possession and a football move before he hit the ground. The fact that the ball moved is not dispositive of (and perhaps not even relevant to) that question.

Also, Bryant didn't play hackey sack with the ball. He got two hands on it, bobbled it, secured it with two hands again, transferred it to one hand and then used the one hand to stretch the ball forward as far as possible. Similarly, he didn't just stumble. He stumbled and then dove forward to try to put the ball over the goal line. You can't decide to stumble, but you can decide whether to dive and reach out with the ball, and (in my view) you can't dive and reach out with the ball if you don't have control of the ball in your reaching hand.

For some reason, you keep referring to hypothetical facts that are materially different from what actually happened. But since you are talking about hypotheticals, suppose a receiver stumbles for 6 or 8 steps using his hand on the ground to avoid going down before finally stumble-diving into the endzone and losing the ball when he hits the ground. Catch? Can it never be a catch until the stumbling receiver fully regains his balance? Even if he stumbles for 20 steps, holding the ball tightly the whole time? If not (which I think is clearly the right answer) then you have to assess whether the stumbling and diving while holding the ball constitutes possession. Just saying he stumbled and the ball moved do not, in and of themselves, answer the question.

Points: 0

#95 by JasonK // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:22am

The "football move" (or "act common to the game") is irrelevant in a situation (as here) where the player was falling to the ground at the point when he secured control of the ball. In that situation, the "going to the ground" rules apply in place of the "football move" standard.

Points: 0

#220 by bluereloaded // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:02pm

Part of the problem was that Dez was juggling the ball for 2 of the 3 steps, so he never really had time to gain control--much less possession--of the ball before reaching towards the goal line.

Points: 0

#277 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:24pm

Yeah, I think if the ball doesn't bounce off his shoulder initially, there's some argument about having possession, but he juggles it after initial contact with the ball, has it knocked out by the ground and juggles it some more as he flips to his back. If he catches it solidly throughout, the argument becomes stronger - or rather, makes it less subjective. I'm not sure I even buy he's intentional trying to transfer it from hand to hand during those steps so much as contending with catching, falling, fighting the defender, staying in bounds and finding the endzone. The way the catch happens basically allows for maximum subjective interpretation of what's going on - the only way to believe it's a catch is if you view all of Bryant's actions in a split-second sequence favorably, which is to say you view them all as being intentional. I think people believing it to be a catch, are arguing for the most subjective view of what happened.

Points: 0

#150 by MJK // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:14pm

I agree that, per the current rules, it wasn't a catch. He was "going to the ground"--there was no way he could have jumped up, caught that, and landed on his feet without falling. So he has to maintain control even if the ball hits the ground. Going to the ground + ball touches ground + lose control = no catch. The only thing about this that's even debatable is whether the ball touches the ground--I'm about 95% certain that it did based on the replays that I saw, but I never saw a 100% definitive version. If you want to gripe about the call, I think this is your only leg to stand on--whether it was "clear and conclusive" that the ball actually touched the ground (the ref said it was).

Interestingly, if it didn't touch the ground, then not only was the play a catch, but it was a TD, rather than a catch at the 1. Because Dez loses control upon hitting the ground, and regains it in the end zone, if the ball never touched the ground. That would have really made McCarthy regret challenging it!

Points: 0

#187 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:08pm

I wasn't sure the ball hit the ground, either. The ball is dark, Bryant's skin is dark, and the field is dark; I couldn't see it on my older model HDTV. I heard Pereria say that for him what made it not a catch had something to do with not making some sort of football move while demonstrating control. I certainly see a lunge to the end zone, as opposed to simply falling to the ground. The rule are pretty byzantine, and I'm not an expert, but it certainly seems as if what constitutes a catch can be pretty subjective.

Points: 0

#320 by EnderCN // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:09pm

Dez may have meant to lunge for the end zone but he certainly did not manage to actually lunge for it. The ball never moved past his helmet. If he understands the rule and the game situation he secures the catch rather than trying to get a TD. Once he doesn't catch it cleanly up top he has to know that he has to be sure to secure the catch as he goes down.

Points: 0

#180 by EricL // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:03pm

My interpretation is that it was correctly reversed. The ball hit the ground and bounced up in the air, and I think the leaping nature of the catch means that the "going to the ground" rules apply.

My take on it is this: For the "going to the ground" clauses to not apply, he must at some point have been deemed "upright" after initially controlling the ball. That never occurs, therefore the going to ground bit applies.

Also, that's not a catch in baseball, either. Not that that applies here, but there's precedent for a rule like this, and I've got no problem with the going to ground section of defining a catch.

Points: 0

#188 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:08pm

Baseball is a bit different in that it's unlikely the ball will touch the ground at all on a controlled catch and if it does it's probably on the edge of the glove with borderline control.

It seems to me like the baseball analogy would be the player catches the ball in the air, as he takes a stumbling step transfers it to his other hand and then the ball comes out as he hits the ground. I'm not sure exactly how that would be ruled but it feels like it should also be a catch.

Points: 0

#192 by EricL // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:14pm

The baseball analogy here is an outfielder half-diving for a catch, gets the ball in his glove, but the ball comes out when the glove hits the ground.

Did he, at some point, have control of the ball by a layman's definition? Yes. Is it a catch? No.

Points: 0

#198 by deus01 // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:23pm

Well in this case Dez moves the ball to one and extends it so there is an additional movement.

Your baseball analogy would apply more to a receiver diving to catch the ball, gets it in his finger tips and then has the ground knock it out. That's easier to rule incomplete because he wasn't able to make any additional moves with the ball.

Points: 0

#205 by ChrisS // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:34pm

I agree that in baseball if the ball comes out on a dive when the glove hits the ground it is not a catch. But this more like sprinting to the ball, getting it in your glove, closing your glove, taking two stumbling steps, falling to the ground and having the ball fall out. Which I would expect to be ruled a good catch.

Points: 0

#191 by Mark S. // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:12pm

Totally agree. I think the rule is fine and the enforcement of it in this case was correct. To me, Dez never truly secured that ball before it hit the ground.

FWIW I thought the same thing about the Calvin Johnson catch.

Points: 0

#3 by big10freak // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:49am

Julius Peppers was incredible yesterday. And tied to that every sack save for the first one was a coverage sack so the secondary, whatever the penalties called, must have been really good much of the game.

Corey Linsley showed being a rookie early. Glad he got his sea legs.

Thrilled the special teams didn't cost Green Bay the game.

Adams had all but disappeared the last 4-5 weeks. His re-emergence was clearly tied to Rodgers/McCarthy recognizing that there was no tomorrow unless they took risks so Rodgers began to look for the guy despite his drops of late along with the team bagging the run and going all pass all the time.

McCarthy also won a challenge which is pretty incredible.

What a game

Points: 0

#5 by Eddo // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:51am

Either Peppers or Adams was the Packers' true MVP yesterday. I didn't think Peppers could still play this well late in the year, given how he seemed to fade his last couple of years in Chicago.

Points: 0

#6 by big10freak // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:54am

Peppers had faded this season as well even with GB cutting back his snaps come December. The week off clearly helped

It will be telling how much he can bring next week

Points: 0

#20 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:23am

Unless Rodgers as a huge recuperative week, it's gonna be ugly in Seattle, I think. That was one of the great one-legged performances ever, but a defense with great personnel, in their own very loud stadium, is a formula for a boring game, if the qb remains one-legged. Of course, Romo was about the same by game's end, so by the time the fourth quarter started, I was about 90% sure Seattle was going back to try to be the first repeat champ in a decade, and I also don't think either AFC team is beating them.

Points: 0

#30 by Arkaein // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:33am

Unfortunately, I'm mostly in agreement with this.

When Romo got knocked down and looked like he might not be able to finish, after Rodgers had spent most of the game gimping around, I feel like the real winner of this game was Seattle.

Points: 0

#42 by Sakic // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:44am


Rodgers at 75% is still better than all but a handful of QBs in the league but going into Seattle against that defense you need to be at your best. My best hope is that Rodgers plays like he did in the second half (moving in the pocket) and Seattle comes in overconfident and doesn't put forth their best effort.

Points: 0

#47 by big10freak // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:47am

The Green Bay offensive line is playing about as well as any line can be playing. The Packer fan in me uses that as the foundation of hope

Points: 0

#100 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:25am

They have made gigantic strides since the beginning of the season, and are very good, but they aren't like the Dallas line, which can decide to run against any defense, which is in any formation, and have confidence that they will be successful. The Packers mostly run very effectively because the o-line is very good, but also because most d-coordinators risk being committed to a mental institution if they try to play Rodgers with a single safety over the top.

Points: 0

#281 by mehllageman56 // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:38pm

It seems to me the way to attack Seattle is to pound them on the ground, which the Packers are capable of. Unfortunately, defending the run is also extremely important against them, and that is where the Packers are lacking.

Points: 0

#8 by big10freak // Jan 12, 2015 - 9:59am

Any thoughts on Harbaugh's characterization of the Pats line setup as 'deception'?

I don't know if I should regard that as Harbaugh having a point or Harbaugh grousing because his team was 'outwitted'.

Points: 0

#60 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:00am

Yeah, Harbaugh somehow made it sound like deception wasn't allowed.

I guess the Ravens don't run play-action. Or zone blitzes. Or any other calls that entail deception.

Points: 0

#85 by JoeyHarringtonsPiano // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:16am

Seriously. I live in the Baltimore area, so I have a bit of a soft corner for the Ravens, but Harbaugh needs to stop whining. Does he whine when the other team runs a fake punt or surprise onside kick, too?

Points: 0

#18 by nat // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:21am

Harbaugh is a well-known crybaby. He wasn't whining to the refs because he was outwitted. He was whining to the refs because that's what he does.

And, no. He has no point here. This is a routine eligibility reporting situation, with the twist of using an unbalanced line. There is ample time to match personnel on the substitution. The ineligible receiver is reported and announced to the defense. Harbaugh failed to match personnel when the Patriots sent in an extra skilled receiver to replace a skilled blocker, and his team was not coached to handle unbalanced lines properly.

There is no requirement in the rules that an offensive formation be easy to defend. But in this case, it is. You have a number of choices. Substitute in another DB or LB, and in effect play ten-on-ten football. Play zone. Jam the TE instead of trying to get around him. Blitz (risky, but you get insanely great mismatches on the line).

Harbaugh blew it. And then he cried to momma. Boo hoo.

Points: 0

#55 by jonnyblazin // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:57am

Harbaugh wanted more time for the defense to respond to newly identified eligible receiver. And after complaining and getting an unsportsmanlike penalty, Vinovich told him he would be granted more time. So Harbaugh's "whining" served a purpose, but the Pats never ran that formation again.

Points: 0

#82 by nat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:14am

If the refs promised a longer delay after announcing an ineligible receiver, then they were promising to cheat for the Ravens. The rules allow for such extra time after a substitution, but not again after an eligibility announcement. The only mandated delay in that case is enough time for the refs to get into position after the announcement.

This is what I hate about Harbaugh. He whines to get the refs to favor his team against the rules. That he succeeds in getting favorable treatment doesn't make it any better. In this game, he got extra notification and coverage advice ("Do not cover that receiver." I can't believe the refs said that!). And, if he was promised even more time after the announcement, he got a change of the rules, too.

Points: 0

#94 by jonnyblazin // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:22am

Or the refs realized that the Pats were not reporting who was eligible "immediately" (as mandated in the rule book), and allowed the Baltimore defense the proper amount of time adjust.

Can you name any other instances of Harbaugh convincing the refs to change the rules to favor his team? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

Points: 0

#128 by SmoothLikeIce // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:45am

Was on the 30 yard line 20 rows up, the three plays in question almost directly in front of me. Each play, the player who was ineligible (whether Vereen or Hooman) ran straight to Vinovich and told him that he was not eligible. Immediately, Vinovich reported it over the PA to the stadium. There were then (according to both Barnwell and King) between 7-10 seconds for each of the three plays for the Ravens to react accordingly. They could not. It's since been made clear that the play is completely legal.

There is no issue other than Harbaugh was mad about it. He should have called a timeout.

Points: 0

#176 by Digit // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:54pm

Considering that they were giving them 7 to 10 seconds, and or close to between 1/5 to 1/4 of the play clock... yeah, that's plenty of time. More time than audibles at the line.

The PA announcer at the stadium announced things much earlier... the idiots on tv were babbling over it so they pretty much flatout missed the timing.

Points: 0

#196 by Digit // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:21pm

Also, one other thing, I pointed this out before... the problem was that the Patriots were sending out enough eligible receivers that ONE had to declare ineligible.

This they did, and announced to the refs with at least seven seconds. (And stop whining about 'a couple seconds' or 'at the last second'- the TV announcers were talking over the PA at the stadium, which is why they -failed- to understand what was going on...)

The problem was that the Ravens did not identify, ON THEIR OWN, that the TE over there -remained- eligible. The ref really doesn't have to tell them who to cover. Hell, he went above the call of duty saying 'DO NOT COVER VEREEN'.

So the refs did their job. They identified the ineligible receiver, the same way they would have to identify the eligible receiver if there were too many ineligible receiver. The NFL has stated that the refs did what they were supposed to do, and that everything was legal.

It's on the defense to identify the formation.

So if the refs were promising to give him more time 'to identify the eligible player', then yeah, I would have said this would be exactly a perfect example of Harbaugh convincing the refs to change the rules.

Points: 0

#221 by jonnyblazin // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:02pm

It's up to the ref's discretion to allow time for the defense to identify which players are eligible and adjust the defense accordingly. After Harbaugh pointed out what the Pats were doing, the refs agree that they were not giving the Ravens defense enough time.

It's a subjective call, and the refs agreed with Harbaugh. It's not changing the rules.

Points: 0

#260 by CaffeineMan // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:50pm

Actually, I've only ever heard this statement from Harbaugh in his press conference. Did the refs and/or league make any statements about this?

Points: 0

#268 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:59pm

Ha - can you imagine? "We know there was some controversy with the Bryant catch yesterday, but we'd also like to point out that we admitted that the Patriots were cheating and did nothing to stop it. Just by the way."

Points: 0

#282 by CaffeineMan // Jan 12, 2015 - 3:40pm

Yeah, I know you're gonna ride that hobby-horse 'til it breaks but... :-)

If the refs told Harbaugh they would allow him more time, no reason not to confirm that afterwards. It was a judgement call on the refs part whether the Ravens were granted "enough" time.

I thought Kevin Seifert's Inside Slant (he's an NFC North guy, in case you're wondering about bias) had a good article on the judgement aspect of it on ESPN's website:

It was a high-school/college play and the Ravens got beat 3 times with it before they did something about it. And instead of calling a "safe" defense (guys on the field), or calling a timeout, Harbaugh loses his cool and runs on the field, getting a penalty. He had 8 seconds the first play and then 2 more plays to call a time out, including at least 8 seconds between plays.

(edited to add link to Seifert's article)

Points: 0

#289 by SandyRiver // Jan 12, 2015 - 4:02pm

Almost every team in the NFL is willing to burn a TO to save 5 yd for delay of game. It seems mighty dumb to give away 15 rather than use the TO to harangue the refs AND set your D.

Points: 0

#310 by SandyRiver // Jan 12, 2015 - 8:36pm

Was not watching at that point, so I didn't realize that Harbaugh watched all three of the odd-formation plays before blowing his stack. How observant (and not just him, but his entire staff failed to hear/see/react until then.)

Points: 0

#174 by nat // Jan 12, 2015 - 12:47pm

It's not like anyone could get replays of his insufferable whining. But Deadspin had this at the start of the season in their "Why Your Team Sucks" feature:

John Harbaugh, who is the worst Harbaugh. I can't believe any Harbaugh is worse than Jim Harbaugh, but at least Jim has some small, deeply cloaked understanding that he is a psycho who wears terrible pants. John lacks this final, molecular trace of self-awareness, and thus, he is the fucking worst. I hate him. I hate his face. I hate the way he bitches after every single goddamn play, like a scientifically formed hybrid of an NBA player and a World Cup player. Other young coaches are going to fall in line with John's "complain to the refs because the refs don't know what they're doing because the NFL changes the rules every week" model of behavior, and the NFL will become insufferable for it.

You don't get that specific write up without a long history of whining to the refs. Sure it's a joke. But it's a joke about a real character flaw, that is well-known to the reading audience.

Points: 0

#217 by jonnyblazin // Jan 12, 2015 - 1:58pm

So working the refs is a character flaw? Do you find that pointing out plays in which a penalty could be called on the opposition is a moral failure? You have a bizarre ethical standard. Maybe Harbaugh should behave according to the "Patriot Way" instead...

Points: 0

#252 by chemical burn // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:38pm

Yeah, I think what makes Harbaugh's behavior totally NECESSARY is that it was the Patriots he was complaining about - Belichick's teams have a long, notorious tradition of pushing up against the borders of the rules and erring on the side of over-stepping them. They consciously make the refs put an end to their shenanigans as part of their gameplan (going all the way back to their approach to Marshall Faulk in the Superbowl.) It don't think it's necessarily objectionable on the part of the Pats to do that, by the way - it's the refs job to enforce the rules and define the grey areas, not Belichick's.

However, that means that Harbaugh absolutely has a responsibility to get on the refs and make sure the rules are being enforced in a coherent, fair way. If the refs aren't reacting, he absolutely has to point out what's happening and make sure they understand how skirting the border of the rules is creating an imbalance in the other team's favor. Only negligent, useless coaches like Jim Caldwell and Mike Smith wouldn't understand that working the refs is their responsibility in that case.

Points: 0

#305 by Anon Ymous // Jan 12, 2015 - 7:21pm

I have to admit to being confused at this comment. Spygate kills any chance for NE to hold the moral high ground, but a legal formation that is legally disclosed and the opponent is given a legal amount of time... where is the grey area here? Was there deception? Of course, but no more than a zone blitz or a play action pass. Harbaugh making a fuss doesn't demonstrate that there was something wrong with the play, just that it took him by surprise. By that standard the league should review the double pass. And even if Harbaugh *thinks* there was something uncouth about it, that still doesn't mean anything when you realize that, again, NE didn't do a single thing illegally by the letter or the spirit of the rule.

If you want to talk about pushing up to the edge, the Ravens should really look in the mirror. They were given a great deal of leeway with contact in the secondary (Gronk having both arms pinned down on a 3rd down play, the defender literally grabbing LaFell's right arm and tugging on it, forcing a one handed catch on the go ahead TD) as well as QB contact (intentionally kneeing Brady in the head after a play, and picking him up and body slamming him even though the ball was already out). From the perspective of your complaint, Baltimore did the exact same thing; they pushed beyond the limits and forced the refs to pull the back in line. The only difference was that what NE did wasn't actually against the rules.

Points: 0

#223 by JimZipCode // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:03pm

I'm shocked that there's a widespread perception of John Harbaugh as a crybaby and a whiner.
(outside of Deadspin "Why your team sucks" stories)

I'm serious. Ravens fan who lives just outside of Baltimore, I had no idea there was such a perception. I've been well aware for years about the perception of Tom Brady as a spoiled crybaby, but had no clue anyone regarded Harbaugh as a whiner.

Points: 0

#230 by big10freak // Jan 12, 2015 - 2:15pm

Both Harbaughs have that rep.

And Jim adds to it by also being regarded as insane

but in the nicest possible way

Points: 0

#24 by Will Allen // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:25am

When everybody in the stadium is told the guy is ineligible, I don't know what the hell the opposing head coach is griping about.

Points: 0

#62 by RickD // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:02am

He had ten seconds or more. It's not like the Pats were running a hurry-up offense.

What he really wanted was a minute or two to figure out what he should do. And it's the fault of the Pats or the refs for not giving him that time. Or something like that.

Points: 0

#72 by jonnyblazin // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:07am

The Ravens should have been given time enough to substitute personnel depending on who is eligible and who is not. 10 seconds isn't enough time to do that. The player reporting is supposed to report "immediately" according to the NFL rulebook, not 8 seconds before the snap.

Points: 0

#104 by nat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:27am


You get extra time to match subs when they come on the field, not eligibility when it is announced.

You are supposed to report yourself ineligible "immediately" after you line up ineligible, not when you come on the field. It's in the rulebook. The only mandated delay imposed then is enough time for the refs to announce the ineligible player to the defense and get back into position. Eight seconds is easily long enough for that. Two or three seconds would probably be enough.

The whole purpose of the rule is to help the refs interpret the lineup to see who is on the end of the line, who is in the backfield, and who is in the interior line. It is NOT to give the defense a second chance to substitute, nor is it even to give defenses a chance move players around or make complex alterations to their play call.

The Ravens opted to not cover the TE - who was in a TE's number and clearly uncovered at the end of the line. They guessed he was going to be used as a blocker. They guessed poorly. End of story.

Points: 0

#119 by PatsFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:39am

Correct. Here's the rule (Rule 5, Section 3, Article 1):

Article 1 An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50–79 and 90–99) is permitted to line up in the position of an eligible pass receiver (1–49 and 80–89), and an offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he immediately reports the change in his eligibility status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team.

He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game, but prior to each play he must again report his status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team. The game clock shall not be stopped, and the ball shall not be put in play until the Referee takes his normal position.

And that's what happened. Vereen reported his change of status at or before the time he changed his eligible status (by lining up in an ineligible position). The ref literally pointed him out to the defense, made the announcement, then got into his position and signaled ready-for-snap.

Points: 0

#28 by The Powers That Be // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:33am

I wasn't watching that game closely. Was an intercom announcement made that the guy was ineligible? And how much time elapsed between that announcement and the snap? My understanding is that Harbaugh's complaining that the snap was right on the heels of whatever announcement was made, giving the Ravens no time to adjust their defense. It seems to me that it ought to work like substitutions: the refs shouldn't let them snap until they have time to respond to the change in (in this case) personnel eligibility.

Points: 0

#33 by PatsFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:38am

The ref announced it to the crowd each time. One time the ref even said something like "#34 is reporting as ineligible. Don't cover #34". And it was 6-8 seconds from the reporting to the snap.

Points: 0

#46 by nat // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:46am

I do think the ref who gave coverage advice to the Ravens should be reprimanded. That's a big no-no for refs.

Imagine a ref saying "That guy is really fast. Don't cover him with a linebacker." Or even "That tackle is eligible. Be sure to cover him."

They are supposed to announce who is eligible or ineligible when it is different from their numbering. That is all they are supposed to do.

Points: 0

#58 by PatsFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 10:59am

It's stupid for the ref to say that for another reason -- while Vereen couldn't catch a forward pass he absolutely (like anyone else on the field) could catch a backwards pass. (I in fact wonder if that was a planned variant -- if BAL had sniffed out the trickeration and stopped covering Vereen, would NE have thrown a backward pass to him? We might have seen Harbaugh's brains ooze out of his ears...)

Points: 0

#98 by Pat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:24am

OK, that is a damn awesome variation.

There's a ton of trickery you can do there. Plus, Vereen can be moving backwards all he wants, so you can not declare him ineligible on a play, have him line up as an ineligible receiver (on the line, between a split-off RT and a WR on the line). If he's not covered (because they think it's another 'ineligible Vereen' play), you just have him back up before the snap, and he's eligible, and it's a screen.

You can also have him declared ineligible, like you said, and have him start his motion after the snap, get a backwards pass, and you've got 3 plays with the same formation, with ever so slightly different communication and confusion on the defense.

Points: 0

#125 by PatsFan // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:44am

Plus, Vereen can be moving backwards all he wants, so you can not declare him ineligible on a play, have him line up as an ineligible receiver (on the line, between a split-off RT and a WR on the line). If he's not covered (because they think it's another 'ineligible Vereen' play), you just have him back up before the snap, and he's eligible, and it's a screen.

Not quite. Once a player reports an eligibility status at odds with his number, the player is locked into that status until he comes out for a play or there's a stoppage in play (timeout, penalty, etc.). So in your scenario Vereen would have to step back before the snap whether or not he's covered, because if he didn't step back he'd be an eligible number in an ineligible position which would of course be a foul.

Points: 0

#113 by nat // Jan 12, 2015 - 11:34am

I suspect a lateral to Vereen was the second read on that play. He hustled back very quickly, much more than needed as a decoy.

But to top it all off, they should do this with Edelman, and have it end with a WR pass to Brady "streaking" up the middle of the field.

The interwebs would explode.

Points: 0

Save 10%
& Support Andrew
Support Football Outsiders' independent media and Andrew Potter. Use promo code POTTER to save 10% on any FO+ membership and give half the cost of your membership to tip Andrew.