2012-2013 NFL Thread

[iamshack]

Turner also was the OC for a few of the Cowboys' SB titles...

[nitetrain8601]

I don't know I'd ever have described that SD team under him as great. The offense maybe, but now their line is terrible and they've lost all their playmakers.

 

It was when he first got there. I mean, didn't he take them to an AFC championship game and lost in New England. Maybe that was the 2nd round, but he put up quite a fight, even without LT playing. And I think it was two years in a row.

 

Turner, though, is moreso an offensive coordinator, and a great one at that. He's like the Dick LeBeau of offense.

[iamshack]

Does it annoy anyone else how these defensive players will let a team drive all the way down the field or already give up 35 points and then they make 1 stinking play and act as though they are freaking amazing?

 

Some of these pro athletes are just such huge jag offs.

[DrunkBomber]

[lostfan]

I got myself in trouble on WCG for saying "Kellen Davis couldn't catch HIV from a intravenous drug-using gay prostitute in the early 1980s"

 

I forgot they have rules and you can't say douchey things like that like on my twitter or my other football message board.

[witesoxfan]

Before I forget, and something that is generally pretty subjective (as opposed to Bryant's pinkie clearly being out of bounds), I just want to say that the final play of the Colts-Bills game (besides Luck kneeling) was a total and bulls*** ticky-tack PI call given the circumstances.

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/media-center/v...d8-b9c977fda043

 

The play starts at 2:58. There is clearly contact made by the cornerback, but as I see it, he simply had his arm on the left side of Reggie Wayne's body and his placement does not effect the ability for Wayne to make the catch whatsoever (unlike Randy Moss's obvious non-call in the Saints-49ers game, which, as I recall, led to a score, if not a touchdown). I'm obviously biased, and can see how it would be called, but you would think that, given the circumstances of the game, they would let the guys play a little bit towards the end of the game. The Colts made a risky move, Wayne didn't run a great route (and actually pushes off of Gilmore on the intial move in the route), and Luck didn't make a great pass...yet the PI call is made based upon Gilmore putting his hand on Wayne's side, knocking down the pass (which, it can be argued he used the hand contact as leverage, which I wouldn't deny either), and then the two falling at the end of the play.

 

I just think that one is so close that you let it go, which is why I was as frustrated as I was with the call. In all likelihood, the Bills don't drive down the field and score, but I think, given the circumstances, that call was unnecessary.

 

[DrunkBomber]

Before I forget, and something that is generally pretty subjective (as opposed to Bryant's pinkie clearly being out of bounds), I just want to say that the final play of the Colts-Bills game (besides Luck kneeling) was a total and bulls*** ticky-tack PI call given the circumstances.

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/media-center/v...d8-b9c977fda043

 

The play starts at 2:58. There is clearly contact made by the cornerback, but as I see it, he simply had his arm on the left side of Reggie Wayne's body and his placement does not effect the ability for Wayne to make the catch whatsoever (unlike Randy Moss's obvious non-call in the Saints-49ers game, which, as I recall, led to a score, if not a touchdown). I'm obviously biased, and can see how it would be called, but you would think that, given the circumstances of the game, they would let the guys play a little bit towards the end of the game. The Colts made a risky move, Wayne didn't run a great route (and actually pushes off of Gilmore on the intial move in the route), and Luck didn't make a great pass...yet the PI call is made based upon Gilmore putting his hand on Wayne's side, knocking down the pass (which, it can be argued he used the hand contact as leverage, which I wouldn't deny either), and then the two falling at the end of the play.

 

I just think that one is so close that you let it go, which is why I was as frustrated as I was with the call. In all likelihood, the Bills don't drive down the field and score, but I think, given the circumstances, that call was unnecessary.

It was tough to see from that angle but it was pretty close. I could see the call going either way but as you said in a situation like that Id always prefer to let them play and not let a flag decide the game.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,6140592.story

 

Bears cornerback Charles Tillman has what is believed to be a chipped bone in his right foot, according to a league source. The injury, however, does not appear to be serious, and it's possible he can play through it.

[Steve9347]

Joe blocking me from replying is likely the best thing that ever happened to me. I would have absolutely found a way to get suspended trying to reply to the zaniness posted the last two days.

 

The out of bounds rule is the simplest rule in all of professional sports.

[Steve9347]

This has to be the end of Norv Turner and Andy Reid right? If Bengals miss playoffs maybe Marvin Lewis too?

I just had this conversation in my office. Norv clearly has nudies of the right people - I can't believe he survived past the LaDanian Tomlinson era, let alone this long.

 

As for Reid, if he doesn't get canned he looks like he's ready to resign.

[iamshack]

Before I forget, and something that is generally pretty subjective (as opposed to Bryant's pinkie clearly being out of bounds), I just want to say that the final play of the Colts-Bills game (besides Luck kneeling) was a total and bulls*** ticky-tack PI call given the circumstances.

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/media-center/v...d8-b9c977fda043

 

The play starts at 2:58. There is clearly contact made by the cornerback, but as I see it, he simply had his arm on the left side of Reggie Wayne's body and his placement does not effect the ability for Wayne to make the catch whatsoever (unlike Randy Moss's obvious non-call in the Saints-49ers game, which, as I recall, led to a score, if not a touchdown). I'm obviously biased, and can see how it would be called, but you would think that, given the circumstances of the game, they would let the guys play a little bit towards the end of the game. The Colts made a risky move, Wayne didn't run a great route (and actually pushes off of Gilmore on the intial move in the route), and Luck didn't make a great pass...yet the PI call is made based upon Gilmore putting his hand on Wayne's side, knocking down the pass (which, it can be argued he used the hand contact as leverage, which I wouldn't deny either), and then the two falling at the end of the play.

 

I just think that one is so close that you let it go, which is why I was as frustrated as I was with the call. In all likelihood, the Bills don't drive down the field and score, but I think, given the circumstances, that call was unnecessary.

PI calls are basically impossible to objectively discuss these days...they've swung the pendulum too far in the other direction now, which I am not sure they dislike, considering fans seem to appreciate more passing and more scoring, but it has become damn hard to be a DB or linebacker in this league these days.

[witesoxfan]

PI calls are basically impossible to objectively discuss these days...they've swung the pendulum too far in the other direction now, which I am not sure they dislike, considering fans seem to appreciate more passing and more scoring, but it has become damn hard to be a DB or linebacker in this league these days.

 

It's an incredibly unfair penalty for the defense too because they can, in theory, be penalized 98 yards for the infraction, but it's only ever a 10 yard penalty for the offense and, by nature of the rule itself, referees are going to be more apt to call it against the defense.

 

I'm of the mindset that unless it is blatant pass interference, you should leave it alone.

 

I also think they could and probably should call illegal contact more aggressively too...I seem to see a lot of contact between DBs and WRs that is intentional that goes uncalled, but that's the eye-test which, obviously, never ever fails.

[cabiness42]

In his TMQ column, Gregg Easterbrook pointed out a loophole in the 'red flag on a scoring play' rule that some coach could take advantage of:

 

1) Team A scores a touchdown on a play that is almost certain to be reversed upon review.

 

2) Team A's coach throws the challenge flag with the specific intent of having the review nullified. Team A gets a 15 yard penalty, but the touchdown stands.

[Jake]

In his TMQ column, Gregg Easterbrook pointed out a loophole in the 'red flag on a scoring play' rule that some coach could take advantage of:

 

1) Team A scores a touchdown on a play that is almost certain to be reversed upon review.

 

2) Team A's coach throws the challenge flag with the specific intent of having the review nullified. Team A gets a 15 yard penalty, but the touchdown stands.

 

Doesn't work like that. Throwing the flag only prevents you from benefiting from the play, not preventing review. At least, this is how it was explained on TV.

[iamshack]

What would the team scoring the td be challenging, anyway?

[cabiness42]

Doesn't work like that. Throwing the flag only prevents you from benefiting from the play, not preventing review. At least, this is how it was explained on TV.

 

Have you seen anything in print that backs that up? Everything I've seen says that if a coach throws a challenge flag on a play that would otherwise automatically be reviewed, the play becomes unreviewable. It doesn't specify that it applies only to the coach of the team that did not score or turned the ball over.

[witesoxfan]

In his TMQ column, Gregg Easterbrook pointed out a loophole in the 'red flag on a scoring play' rule that some coach could take advantage of:

 

1) Team A scores a touchdown on a play that is almost certain to be reversed upon review.

 

2) Team A's coach throws the challenge flag with the specific intent of having the review nullified. Team A gets a 15 yard penalty, but the touchdown stands.

 

Same thing can be done for turnovers too. Team B forces an interception, on replay it is revealed that ball is clearly dropped, Team B throws red flag, play must stand.

 

I think, in those situations where the rules were clearly being manipulated, you would see Goodell step in and I think he'd have a long sit down with whichever coach is throwing the flags, and I would pretty much guarantee that that rule is amended in the offseason to only incorporate the penalty and no longer nixing the replay. There are only 91 games left, so hopefully nothing like these come up during that time.

[cabiness42]

What would the team scoring the td be challenging, anyway?

 

They wouldn't, but if throwing the flag makes the play unreviewable, then that's what they should do.

Edited November 27, 2012 by HickoryHuskers

[witesoxfan]

Doesn't work like that. Throwing the flag only prevents you from benefiting from the play, not preventing review. At least, this is how it was explained on TV.

 

That is very subjective, even if most situations will be black and white. They would need something clear and concrete. If they challenged on that, for whatever reason, and the ref suddenly said no, because you challenged, you lose the touchdown, that would be a bigger travesty than the Forsett play.

[iamshack]

They wouldn't, but if throwing the flag makes the play unreviewable, then that's what they should do.

I thought you have to have a legitimate issue to challenge though...they pick up challenge flags all the time because the rules do not permit a coach to challenge something he threw the flag on.

[StrangeSox]

page 89 (pdf page 97):

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/publi...Rule%20Book.pdf

Penalty: For initiating a challenge when a team is prohibited from doing so: Loss of 15 yards.

[...]

He must initiate a review before the next legal snap or kick and cannot initiate a review of any ruling against a team that commits a foul that delays the next snap.

 

So in that game, the Lions committed a foul that delayed the next snap. The on-field ruling was "against" the Lions in that they wanted to challenge the ruling on the field. I understand the intent of the ruling, that you can't intentionally delay the next snap to give the booth more time to initiate a review, but this was a fair interpretation of the way it's worded.

 

In the hypothetical situation, the ruling that would be reviewed (bad TD call for Team A) was "in favor" of Team A, so them committing a foul to delay the snap wouldn't prevent the booth officials from initiating a review of a ruling against Team B, which committed no foul. At least that's how I read it.

Edited November 27, 2012 by StrangeSox

[LittleHurt05]

It's an incredibly unfair penalty for the defense too because they can, in theory, be penalized 98 yards for the infraction, but it's only ever a 10 yard penalty for the offense and, by nature of the rule itself, referees are going to be more apt to call it against the defense.

 

I'm of the mindset that unless it is blatant pass interference, you should leave it alone.

 

Which QB have you seen throw the ball 98 yards in the air?

 

I think the NFL's rule is too tough, but college's rule is too light. Placing the ball on the one yard line is just brutal, but with a 15-yard penalty it makes sense for a DB to commit the penalty and prevent a long bomb. Maybe it should be like minimum 15 yards, maximum is halfway between 15 yards & the spot of the foul? Anything inside the 30 could be half the distance to the goalline.

[Jake]

 

That is very subjective, even if most situations will be black and white. They would need something clear and concrete. If they challenged on that, for whatever reason, and the ref suddenly said no, because you challenged, you lose the touchdown, that would be a bigger travesty than the Forsett play.

 

I misphrased it - they can't benefit from the REVIEW.

[witesoxfan]

Which QB have you seen throw the ball 98 yards in the air?

 

I think the NFL's rule is too tough, but college's rule is too light. Placing the ball on the one yard line is just brutal, but with a 15-yard penalty it makes sense for a DB to commit the penalty and prevent a long bomb. Maybe it should be like minimum 15 yards, maximum is halfway between 15 yards & the spot of the foul? Anything inside the 30 could be half the distance to the goalline.

 

Jamarcus Russell, obviously.

 

I think that sounds fair. I think they should increase the penalty for offensive interference too, atleast to the 15 yards.

[cabiness42]

page 89 (pdf page 97):

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/publi...Rule%20Book.pdf

 

 

So in that game, the Lions committed a foul that delayed the next snap. The on-field ruling was "against" the Lions in that they wanted to challenge the ruling on the field. I understand the intent of the ruling, that you can't intentionally delay the next snap to give the booth more time to initiate a review, but this was a fair interpretation of the way it's worded.

 

In the hypothetical situation, the ruling that would be reviewed (bad TD call for Team A) was "in favor" of Team A, so them committing a foul to delay the snap wouldn't prevent the booth officials from initiating a review of a ruling against Team B, which committed no foul. At least that's how I read it.

 

OK, thanks. That does seem to eliminate that loophole.