When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm not much on defending some of these guys but this one wasn't on him. Every play, each of his receivers were smothered. There was no depth all season behind A.J. Green...high school WRs could run faster and better routes.
I would like to see Lewis gone and Hue Jackson (OC).
This playoff performance is just the latest in a long history of Dalton mediocrity. If it was an isolated game, I might agree, but this is just who Dalton is at this point.
After this latest lose against the Colts, does anyone thing Manning is going to retire?
There's talk John Fox's job is in jeopardy now. There are many free agents and possibly other new coaching staff. Peyton may want to hang up the cleats........
After this latest lose against the Colts, does anyone thing Manning is going to retire?
I think it's likely, except for one scenario. There are a lot of changes coming up in Denver both with players and on the staff, and if I think if he were being honest with himself, he has some liabilities now in his capabilities that are well understood how to exploit. If he had another good 2-3 years of life left in his career it might be worth riding out. I think he has, at best, one more year in him. And it's only worth it if they can field a top 5 team and have another legit shot. So that's the one scenario - they manage to assemble or retain a core talent base for one more run. Maybe one other scenario - they draft a QB in the first round and he plays behind Manning for a year before taking over, so Manning agrees to stay on for one more year to basically mentor the next QB.
But if you are Denver, how much are you going to throw at one more run?
Bryant definitely got robbed on that overturned call. That rule is fugging stupid, taking 3 steps and reaching for the end zone isn't a football move? And since when can the ground cause a fumble? Stupid rule change. (I hate Dallas, but couldn't believe they overturned that)
Bryant definitely got robbed on that overturned call. That rule is fugging stupid, taking 3 steps and reaching for the end zone isn't a football move? And since when can the ground cause a fumble? Stupid rule change. (I hate Dallas, but couldn't believe they overturned that)
Bryant definitely got robbed on that overturned call. That rule is fugging stupid, taking 3 steps and reaching for the end zone isn't a football move? And since when can the ground cause a fumble? Stupid rule change. (I hate Dallas, but couldn't believe they overturned that)
Why is no one talking about the obvious FB moves he made while he was in possession of the ball? Ridiculous call.
I'm not saying Dallas would have won the game. But it would certainly have made it exciting.
Bryant definitely got robbed on that overturned call. That rule is fugging stupid, taking 3 steps and reaching for the end zone isn't a football move? And since when can the ground cause a fumble? Stupid rule change. (I hate Dallas, but couldn't believe they overturned that)
They followed the rule, so how should it not be overruled? Plus its karma for lasts week calls against the Lions.
I saw the same call played out in regular season game this year.
I am indifferent to Dallas winning or losing. The thing that really bothers me about THAT play is how me maintained possession in bounds. At the moment the ball touched the ground, he had control of it. He temporarily lost control but regained it without it ever touching the ground again or going out of bounds. If you are trying to make the catch and the ball touches the ground without possession, I understand. If you catch the ball, make a few moves, hit the ground, and LOSE the ball, I understand. If you are in the process of completing the catch, someone dislodges the ball, and you go out of bounds before regaining control, I understand that too.
I don't understand why the ground is any different than a player in this scenario. If a player hits you immediately after a catch, you lose the ball, and regain possession in bounds without it hitting the ground outside of your possession, its a catch 10 times out 10. There wouldn't be a question. However, when the ground dislodges the ball and you catch it again, what is the difference? The ref is part of the field. If you run into the ref and lose control but regain it, is it incomplete? I don't see that getting overturned.
The rule is iffy to begin with, but the major issue I have is that he still had the ball at the end of the play. IMO, the play should have been a touchdown since he finished the play in the end zone. If you don't buy that, then the ground caused a fumble and the play was dead at the one. In any case, he maintained possession throughout the play, and that is why the call is wrong. Just my .
Pats is an easy choice if the other choice is the Packers.
Packers haven't won in Seattle since 2009. I don't think it's a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination, but I think of it this way: if each team plays an "average" game, Seattle wins (a close one). If Seattle plays extraordinary and Green Bay is average, Seattle wins. If Green Bay plays extraordinary and Seattle average, Green Bay wins.
Packers haven't won in Seattle since 2009. I don't think it's a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination, but I think of it this way: if each team plays an "average" game, Seattle wins (a close one). If Seattle plays extraordinary and Green Bay is average, Seattle wins. If Green Bay plays extraordinary and Seattle average, Green Bay wins.
Agreed. I don't think Yummy needs to worry much about the Pats/Pack scenario.
The rule is iffy to begin with, but the major issue I have is that he still had the ball at the end of the play. IMO, the play should have been a touchdown since he finished the play in the end zone. If you don't buy that, then the ground caused a fumble and the play was dead at the one. In any case, he maintained possession throughout the play, and that is why the call is wrong. Just my .
I thought the same. When the ground dislodged the ball, he never really lost contact with it. I didn't see that the ball ever really separated from him. I thought that since he had control at the moment he hit the ground, the play is over.
I thought that Dez was reaching for the end zone too, but I'm not sure that constitutes a "football move common to the game".
I think he was just falling to the ground. It was his body's momentum that carried him forward I didn't see any football moves after catching ball and before the ground knocked it loose.
I think he was just falling to the ground. It was his body's momentum that carried him forward I didn't see any football moves after catching ball and before the ground knocked it loose.
You're from Tampa Bay. You wouldn't know a football move if you saw one.
01-11-2015, 03:16 PM
