2014 NFL Season

[Saltx3]

sigh.........maybe next year ????

Or maybe not.

So, have the fans figured out how to blame Romo for this loss yet? Or will that take a few days this time?

These fans don't ever blame one player......all other team fans will continue to blame Romo (by whatever name they have for him)

[CaptainP]

Too funny not to share:

[CaptainP]

Who have now fired John Fox...

[CaptainP]

I heard an interesting take on the controversial call from the Packers/Cowboys game.

(First, my opinion stands firm that it was the correct call according to the rule, just that the rule is bad.)


The take I heard:
-If it was indeed a catch by Bryant, then he lost control when he hit the ground.
-But the ground can not cause a fumble. Unless.......
-......unless he is not down by contact. Similar to the legendary Antonio Freeman catch all those years ago on MNF, the defender fell away from Bryant and so Bryant was not down by contact.
-In this case, it IS a fumble. And.....
-An offensive player can not legally recover his own fumble in the end zone. (This rule dates back to the legendary "Holy Roller" play.)
-If this is the case, then Bryant, by recovering that fumble, has then given the Packers a touchback.
-End result would mean that the Packers get the ball back on the 20 yard line.

I don't know how true any of this is, but if so, it adds a very different perspective, doesn't it?

[drunkpirate66]

I heard an interesting take on the controversial call from the Packers/Cowboys game.

(First, my opinion stands firm that it was the correct call according to the rule, just that the rule is bad.)


The take I heard:
-If it was indeed a catch by Bryant, then he lost control when he hit the ground.
-But the ground can not cause a fumble. Unless.......
-......unless he is not down by contact. Similar to the legendary Antonio Freeman catch all those years ago on MNF, the defender fell away from Bryant and so Bryant was not down by contact.
-In this case, it IS a fumble. And.....
-An offensive player can not legally recover his own fumble in the end zone. (This rule dates back to the legendary "Holy Roller" play.)
-If this is the case, then Bryant, by recovering that fumble, has then given the Packers a touchback.
-End result would mean that the Packers get the ball back on the 20 yard line.

I don't know how true any of this is, but if so, it adds a very different perspective, doesn't it?

Oh there certainly are perspectives.

You are now in what I would called Stage 2 of denial towards you football team's win: overly analyzing. I am on stage 176 from the tuck rule game which was about 14 years ago now. You have quite a journey in front of you, my friend. Just remember that the call was correct, that the call was correct, that the call was correct, that the call was correct . . . and eventually you will actually believe it.

[lime rickie]

I'm just happy for the Patriots fans. Maybe with the Giants out this year the Pats can actually win this thing.

[SMLCHNG]

They could have at least spelled DIRECTV correctly...

[lime rickie]

They could have at least spelled DIRECTV correctly...

Peyton's done.

[CaptainP]

I'm just happy for the Patriots fans. Maybe with the Giants out this year the Pats can actually win this thing.

Nah. Their last SB loss that wasn't to the Giants was to the Packers...and the one time the Colts got past this point, it was a win over the Patriots. Lots of demons to conquer.

[Bicycle Bill]

I heard an interesting take on the controversial call from the Packers/Cowboys game.

(First, my opinion stands firm that it was the correct call according to the rule, just that the rule is bad.)


The take I heard:
-If it was indeed a catch by Bryant, then he lost control when he hit the ground.
-But the ground can not cause a fumble. Unless.......
-......unless he is not down by contact. Similar to the legendary Antonio Freeman catch all those years ago on MNF, the defender fell away from Bryant and so Bryant was not down by contact.
-In this case, it IS a fumble. And.....
-An offensive player can not legally recover his own fumble in the end zone. (This rule dates back to the legendary "Holy Roller" play.)
-If this is the case, then Bryant, by recovering that fumble, has then given the Packers a touchback.
-End result would mean that the Packers get the ball back on the 20 yard line.

I don't know how true any of this is, but if so, it adds a very different perspective, doesn't it?

1)  The ground cannot cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion.
2)  According to the ruling after the review, Bryant did not have full possession of the ball when he hit the ground — therefore, incomplete pass; and since it had been 4th down, the ball was turned over to the Packers at the original line of scrimmage.
3)  Even it had been ruled a catch and subsequent fumble, there were still four-plus minutes on the clock — so the 'final two minutes' clause in the fumble rule would not have been a factor anyway. 
4)  In addition, Bryant never was in the end zone, so the rule about a player recovering his own fumble in the end zone was of no consequence either.
5)  So the only other outcome would have been that they had upheld the original ruling on the field that it was a catch (or called it a catch and a fumble, recovered by the same player who fumbled it), and in that case it would have been 1st and goal from the one-yard line for the Cowboys.
6)  It is quite likely that the Cowboys would have scored had this been the case, making it a 28-26 game and giving Dallas a two-point lead.  But they would have then had to kick off to Green Bay, who would probably still have had 3-plus minutes to work the ball down into range before kicking a game-winning field goal.  Final score, 29-28, and the Cowboys still wind up heading back to Texas and wondering what they are going to do during the off-season.

But as noted in #2 above, it wasn't; it was an incomplete pass on 4th down and the ball went over to the Packers at the original line of scrimmage.  Green Bay then played a combination of clock control and keep-away, and ended up winning 26-21.

-"BB"-

[CaptainP]

I heard an interesting take on the controversial call from the Packers/Cowboys game.

(First, my opinion stands firm that it was the correct call according to the rule, just that the rule is bad.)


The take I heard:
-If it was indeed a catch by Bryant, then he lost control when he hit the ground.
-But the ground can not cause a fumble. Unless.......
-......unless he is not down by contact. Similar to the legendary Antonio Freeman catch all those years ago on MNF, the defender fell away from Bryant and so Bryant was not down by contact.
-In this case, it IS a fumble. And.....
-An offensive player can not legally recover his own fumble in the end zone. (This rule dates back to the legendary "Holy Roller" play.)
-If this is the case, then Bryant, by recovering that fumble, has then given the Packers a touchback.
-End result would mean that the Packers get the ball back on the 20 yard line.

I don't know how true any of this is, but if so, it adds a very different perspective, doesn't it?

1)  The ground cannot cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion. It can if he's not down by contact. It's the same as a dropped ball.
2)  According to the ruling after the review, Bryant did not have full possession of the ball when he hit the ground — therefore, incomplete pass; and since it had been 4th down, the ball was turned over to the Packers at the original line of scrimmage. This was a hypothetical post, based on IF they had ruled completed pass.
3)  Even it had been ruled a catch and subsequent fumble, there were still four-plus minutes on the clock — so the 'final two minutes' clause in the fumble rule would not have been a factor anyway.  Was unaware there was a "final two minutes" clause. That would be the part that shoots down this theory.
4)  In addition, Bryant never was in the end zone, so the rule about a player recovering his own fumble in the end zone was of no consequence either. He bobbled, and when he "recovered", he had rolled into the end zone. In this hypothetical instance, it was of consequence.
5)  So the only other outcome would have been that they had upheld the original ruling on the field that it was a catch (or called it a catch and a fumble, recovered by the same player who fumbled it), and in that case it would have been 1st and goal from the one-yard line for the Cowboys. Again, the person who presented this to me did not mention the 2-minute rule. If this play had happened, and it was ruled a catch, then it would be a touchback.
6)  It is quite likely that the Cowboys would have scored had this been the case, making it a 28-26 game and giving Dallas a two-point lead.  But they would have then had to kick off to Green Bay, who would probably still have had 3-plus minutes to work the ball down into range before kicking a game-winning field goal.  Final score, 29-28, and the Cowboys still wind up heading back to Texas and wondering what they are going to do during the off-season. Agreed...

But as noted in #2 above, it wasn't; it was an incomplete pass on 4th down and the ball went over to the Packers at the original line of scrimmage.  Green Bay then played a combination of clock control and keep-away, and ended up winning 26-21.

-"BB"-

Again, this was a hypothetical based only on IF they had ruled it a catch. But the "last two minutes" thing shoots it down.

[drunkpirate66]

I heard an interesting take on the controversial call from the Packers/Cowboys game.

(First, my opinion stands firm that it was the correct call according to the rule, just that the rule is bad.)


The take I heard:
-If it was indeed a catch by Bryant, then he lost control when he hit the ground.
-But the ground can not cause a fumble. Unless.......
-......unless he is not down by contact. Similar to the legendary Antonio Freeman catch all those years ago on MNF, the defender fell away from Bryant and so Bryant was not down by contact.
-In this case, it IS a fumble. And.....
-An offensive player can not legally recover his own fumble in the end zone. (This rule dates back to the legendary "Holy Roller" play.)
-If this is the case, then Bryant, by recovering that fumble, has then given the Packers a touchback.
-End result would mean that the Packers get the ball back on the 20 yard line.

I don't know how true any of this is, but if so, it adds a very different perspective, doesn't it?

1)  The ground cannot cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion. It can if he's not down by contact. It's the same as a dropped ball.
2)  According to the ruling after the review, Bryant did not have full possession of the ball when he hit the ground — therefore, incomplete pass; and since it had been 4th down, the ball was turned over to the Packers at the original line of scrimmage. This was a hypothetical post, based on IF they had ruled completed pass.
3)  Even it had been ruled a catch and subsequent fumble, there were still four-plus minutes on the clock — so the 'final two minutes' clause in the fumble rule would not have been a factor anyway.  Was unaware there was a "final two minutes" clause. That would be the part that shoots down this theory.
4)  In addition, Bryant never was in the end zone, so the rule about a player recovering his own fumble in the end zone was of no consequence either. He bobbled, and when he "recovered", he had rolled into the end zone. In this hypothetical instance, it was of consequence.
5)  So the only other outcome would have been that they had upheld the original ruling on the field that it was a catch (or called it a catch and a fumble, recovered by the same player who fumbled it), and in that case it would have been 1st and goal from the one-yard line for the Cowboys. Again, the person who presented this to me did not mention the 2-minute rule. If this play had happened, and it was ruled a catch, then it would be a touchback.
6)  It is quite likely that the Cowboys would have scored had this been the case, making it a 28-26 game and giving Dallas a two-point lead.  But they would have then had to kick off to Green Bay, who would probably still have had 3-plus minutes to work the ball down into range before kicking a game-winning field goal.  Final score, 29-28, and the Cowboys still wind up heading back to Texas and wondering what they are going to do during the off-season. Agreed...

But as noted in #2 above, it wasn't; it was an incomplete pass on 4th down and the ball went over to the Packers at the original line of scrimmage.  Green Bay then played a combination of clock control and keep-away, and ended up winning 26-21.

-"BB"-

Again, this was a hypothetical based only on IF they had ruled it a catch. But the "last two minutes" thing shoots it down.

This is cute. Just like me and my buddies after the tuck rule. "Charles Woodson hit Tom Brady in the head which is a 15 yard penalty so the tuck rule doesn't matter anyways . . . " Or, "It is is totally in the rule book and it was the right call so whatever because it was the right call because his arm was going forward and everyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know anything about football . . . " Oh, the stories we could tell.

[LIPH]

None of the 4 teams left in the playoffs will have to worry about the Sports Illustrated cover jinx this week. The latest issue has a picture from Monday night's NCAA championship game on the cover.

[SeattleParrotHead]

Whew!

[lime rickie]

Whew!

Whaddah game! Congratulations!

[Bicycle Bill]

Whew!

Whaddah game! Congratulations!

Oh well....  May I be excused?  I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep.

(ahem)
J U S T    Y O U    W A I T    U N T I L    N E X T    Y E A R  !!!!

[big john]

5 minutes left in the game. I was watching at my brother Frank's house and was just about to leave.
But I figured, "Well, let's just see what happens."

[SeattleParrotHead]

People laughed when I said "hey, they're only down by two scores."
With the Seahawks' defense, just about anything is possible....

[TommyBahama]

5 minutes left in the game. I was watching at my brother Frank's house and was just about to leave.
But I figured, "Well, let's just see what happens."

I pretty much said the game was over at that point....but , that's why they play 60 minutes and not 55. The Packers had 3 chances to win that game in the last 5 minutes.( Getting 1 1st down , the 2 point hail mary , and the on side kick). They really had the opportunities to blow the game wide open in the 1st half , you need to score TD's when at the 1. I know he was hurt , but I would ran some type of bootleg with Rodgers , I think it would caught them off guard

[LIPH]

The Seahawks better hope they got their bad game out of their system yesterday. If they play like that in the Super Bowl, as much as I dislike the Patriots, Brady will probably drop 40 on them by halftime.