NFL 2017 Week 15 Thread

*Legion* wrote:

I missed this earlier, but this only strengthens my plan to build around Cam as Panthers GM.

Might want to preemptively send your CV to Eddie DeBartolo.

I'm not buying that, Guru. You take it a step further, and TD's suspension is because the league doesn't want the Panthers anywhere near the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl, because Jerry Richardson is a horse's ass.

No matter if Davis gets two games or just one, you can bet the league will put in place some sort of college-style targeting rule for 2018. Both Davis and Gronk should have been tossed from their respective games.

Rat Boy wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I missed this earlier, but this only strengthens my plan to build around Cam as Panthers GM.

Might want to preemptively send your CV to Eddie DeBartolo.

I'm honestly holding out for another Jr. - this guy. He's a football fan (though not of the Panthers), he's got some money and he's recently retired. Oh, and no felonies.

Id be remiss if I didn’t marvel over Gronk’s catch on the way to their go-ahead touchdown. He’s such a big dude but so capable. That was an amazing grab.

Jayhawker wrote:

I don’t think fumbling into the end zone should cost you possession anymore than fumbling out of bounds. If the defense wants the ball, they need to possess it.

I’d take moving it back to the 20 if you really want to punish the offense. But it just feels wrong that the offense loses possesssion when the defense doesn’t even touch the ball.

I'm on board with this. Then again, just about all the rules regarding the endzone that aren't "what is touchdown" make no f*cking sense to me.

How about ownership that isn't a rich white dude.. We have exactly one owner who isn't some rich white dude..oh and the Packers.. but lets face it all the shareholders are probably pasty white dudes.

Enix wrote:

I'm not buying that, Guru. You take it a step further, and TD's suspension is because the league doesn't want the Panthers anywhere near the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl, because Jerry Richardson is a horse's ass.

No matter if Davis gets two games or just one, you can bet the league will put in place some sort of college-style targeting rule for 2018. Both Davis and Gronk should have been tossed from their respective games.

Neither conspiracy theory is correct. It's much more simple:

The NFL doesn't care about player safety, therefore they rarely eject people and the suspension penalties are lite.

The official letter said this:

You have been previously fined for violations of safety-related rules. Your actions yesterday warrant an escalation of discipline, not only because they were flagrant, but also because of your status as a repeat offender

There you go. Repeat offender gets two days. For trying to kill someone.

See, simple. NFL don't give a f*ck because the big hits are why (a lot of) people watch.

TheGameguru wrote:

How about ownership that isn't a rich white dude.. We have exactly one owner who isn't some rich white dude..oh and the Packers.. but lets face it all the shareholders are probably pasty white dudes.

Yes, but on the other hand, Uncle Eddie versus Jed in the NFC.

TheGameguru wrote:

How about ownership that isn't a rich white dude.. We have exactly one owner who isn't some rich white dude..oh and the Packers.. but lets face it all the shareholders are probably pasty white dudes.

Since I'm assuming you mean Shad Khan as the "one owner", then I must point out that Amy Adams Strunk is not a dude.

Neither is Martha Ford nor Virginia Halas McCaskey.

McCaskey may not "count" as her son George fills the role of chairperson, but Strunk and Ford are.

When football coaches talk about "seeing it" and "trusting what you see", this is what they're talking about.

Foster has climbed to 5th in PFF's grading for linebackers.

So Bortles is 7 td 0 picks in the last 3 games.

Thats a 4 or 5 year contract?

TB better come back to win this to keep the Packers alive.

Lets be honest. Everyone rather see Rodgers in the playoffs than Matt Ryan.

I guess I can start making fun of Patrick Murray now.

jowner wrote:

So Bortles is 7 td 0 picks in the last 3 games.

If only Rodgers could've done that.

Thats a 4 or 5 year contract?

After he equals Rodgers's Super Bowl win total in a couple months.

garion333 wrote:
Enix wrote:

I'm not buying that, Guru. You take it a step further, and TD's suspension is because the league doesn't want the Panthers anywhere near the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl, because Jerry Richardson is a horse's ass.

No matter if Davis gets two games or just one, you can bet the league will put in place some sort of college-style targeting rule for 2018. Both Davis and Gronk should have been tossed from their respective games.

Neither conspiracy theory is correct. It's much more simple:

The NFL doesn't care about player safety, therefore they rarely eject people and the suspension penalties are lite.

The official letter said this:

You have been previously fined for violations of safety-related rules. Your actions yesterday warrant an escalation of discipline, not only because they were flagrant, but also because of your status as a repeat offender

There you go. Repeat offender gets two days. For trying to kill someone.

See, simple. NFL don't give a f*ck because the big hits are why (a lot of) people watch.

Exactly, a few weeks earlier we had this hit from Mike Evans which was 1 game and A.J. Green didn't get anything for his choke hold slam. These were both after the whistle. Gronk's punishment was just consistent with what they have done in the past.

*Legion* wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

How about ownership that isn't a rich white dude.. We have exactly one owner who isn't some rich white dude..oh and the Packers.. but lets face it all the shareholders are probably pasty white dudes.

Since I'm assuming you mean Shad Khan as the "one owner", then I must point out that Amy Adams Strunk is not a dude.

Neither is Martha Ford nor Virginia Halas McCaskey.

McCaskey may not "count" as her son George fills the role of chairperson, but Strunk and Ford are.

I found them hardly worth mentioning since those situations were family owned and they are simply descendants or spouses of the original family ownership who were all white and more than likely dudes. The depressing reality is there are probably only a handful of minority people in this country that can come up with the 30% equity stake required to purchase the Panthers ( I would guess will sell for $2.4B) so that’s a ton of money to come up with.

I doubt Oprah wants to own an NFL franchise. Can’t imagine that would be good for the brand

*Legion* wrote:

I'm even more permissive for catch rules. I wouldn't require a "football move".

Two hands secure on the ball, two feet (or knee or butt or whatever), it's a catch. I don't care what comes next. It just not need to be more complicated than that.

And the ball doesn't touch the ground.

cube wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I'm even more permissive for catch rules. I wouldn't require a "football move".

Two hands secure on the ball, two feet (or knee or butt or whatever), it's a catch. I don't care what comes next. It just not need to be more complicated than that.

And the ball doesn't touch the ground.

Then you are going to negate a ton of catches that they even allow now and the one at the end of the Steelers Pats game would still be the talking head focal point of the week. That one touched the ground and he lost his grip on it for a moment.

They would just have to make it a fumble.

*Legion* wrote:

After he equals Rodgers's Super Bowl win total in a couple months.

IMAGE(https://i.giphy.com/media/C3um6HULzYakg/giphy.webp)

EvilDead wrote:
cube wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I'm even more permissive for catch rules. I wouldn't require a "football move".

Two hands secure on the ball, two feet (or knee or butt or whatever), it's a catch. I don't care what comes next. It just not need to be more complicated than that.

And the ball doesn't touch the ground.

Then you are going to negate a ton of catches that they even allow now and the one at the end of the Steelers Pats game would still be the talking head point of the week. That one touched the ground and he lost his grip on it for a moment.

Remember its not a catch though if he hits the ground and then the ball moves enough to say its not a catch.. except when its the Patriots

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/26/1...

EvilDead wrote:
cube wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I'm even more permissive for catch rules. I wouldn't require a "football move".

Two hands secure on the ball, two feet (or knee or butt or whatever), it's a catch. I don't care what comes next. It just not need to be more complicated than that.

And the ball doesn't touch the ground.

Then you are going to negate a ton of catches that they even allow now and the one at the end of the Steelers Pats game would still be the talking head focal point of the week. That one touched the ground and he lost his grip on it for a moment.

They would just have to make it a fumble.

Yes and no.

Yes, it'll negate catches, but it's easy to figure out, and there's no wiggle room.

No, it wouldn't be a problem, because if it was a fumble, it was recovered in the end zone by the Steelers, therefore touchdown.

TheGameguru wrote:
EvilDead wrote:
cube wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I'm even more permissive for catch rules. I wouldn't require a "football move".

Two hands secure on the ball, two feet (or knee or butt or whatever), it's a catch. I don't care what comes next. It just not need to be more complicated than that.

And the ball doesn't touch the ground.

Then you are going to negate a ton of catches that they even allow now and the one at the end of the Steelers Pats game would still be the talking head point of the week. That one touched the ground and he lost his grip on it for a moment.

Remember its not a catch though if he hits the ground and then the ball moves enough to say its not a catch.. except when its the Patriots

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/26/1...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/11/1...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtYD...

cube wrote:

Yes and no.

Yes, it'll negate catches, but it's easy to figure out, and there's no wiggle room.

No, it wouldn't be a problem, because if it was a fumble, it was recovered in the end zone by the Steelers, therefore touchdown.

But with that logic if it touches the ground it can't be a catch. So if it's not a catch it can't be a fumble. And we have the same outcome on the Steelers game.

TheGameguru wrote:
EvilDead wrote:
cube wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I'm even more permissive for catch rules. I wouldn't require a "football move".

Two hands secure on the ball, two feet (or knee or butt or whatever), it's a catch. I don't care what comes next. It just not need to be more complicated than that.

And the ball doesn't touch the ground.

Then you are going to negate a ton of catches that they even allow now and the one at the end of the Steelers Pats game would still be the talking head point of the week. That one touched the ground and he lost his grip on it for a moment.

Remember its not a catch though if he hits the ground and then the ball moves enough to say its not a catch.. except when its the Patriots

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/26/1...

IMAGE(http://u.cubeupload.com/MilkmanDanimal/tinfoil.jpg)

TheGameguru wrote:
EvilDead wrote:
cube wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I'm even more permissive for catch rules. I wouldn't require a "football move".

Two hands secure on the ball, two feet (or knee or butt or whatever), it's a catch. I don't care what comes next. It just not need to be more complicated than that.

And the ball doesn't touch the ground.

Then you are going to negate a ton of catches that they even allow now and the one at the end of the Steelers Pats game would still be the talking head point of the week. That one touched the ground and he lost his grip on it for a moment.

Remember its not a catch though if he hits the ground and then the ball moves enough to say its not a catch.. except when its the Patriots

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/26/1...

Might want to actually read the article you linked.

"Cooks clearly still controlled the ball with his hands, despite the ball shifting a little. If he had lost his grasp on the ball, this would have been incomplete."

I'm not sure I agree with the "clearly still controlled"because it's harder to see than the Steeler's play where the player clearly lost grasp of the ball. Personally, I would have gone with whatever the initial call on the field was in the Cooks catch because it's hard to tell either way.

Either way your conspiracy that the league is favoring the Pats is such BS and so consistent with your post history in this thread that I can only view it in the same way I view most trolls. A complete and utter waste of my time. So good job I guess.

Either way your conspiracy that the league is favoring the Pats is such BS and so consistent with your post history in this thread that I can only view it in the same way I view most trolls. A complete and utter waste of my time. So good job I guess.

Pfft.. you must be new.. I also hated Peyton Manning as well and thought the league favored the entire family. But then Eli became a national hero and all was forgiven.

I was actually ok with Cook's TD being upheld.. because the replay angle couldn't for 100% certainty overrule the call on the field. But my frustration and others frustration is that I felt the James catch would fall under the same criteria.. not 100% certainty to overrule the call on the field.. but lo and behold its the Patriots so of course it was overturned.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/12...

There could be a million bad/missed calls in the Patriots favor and it wouldn't tip the balance from this one. Still brings a tear to my eye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I09r...

I'm not gonna sit here and side with GG, but holding is a bit of a different beast. Non-calls on holding are okay to me a lot of the time.

There's the age old adage that holding can be called on every play and it's true. As would be pass interference on basically every play with hands-on CBs like Richard Sherman and Darrell Revis (RIP).

JeremyK wrote:

There could be a million bad/missed calls in the Patriots favor and it wouldn't tip the balance from this one. Still brings a tear to my eye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I09r...

garion333 wrote:

I'm not gonna sit here and side with GG, but holding is a bit of a different beast. Non-calls on holding are okay to me a lot of the time.

There's the age old adage that holding can be called on every play and it's true. As would be pass interference on basically every play with hands-on CBs like Richard Sherman and Darrell Revis (RIP).

Actually, the very next play where the Steelers got picked Guru complained about a missed PI call. So... lol

Edit: In general though I do agree with you about holding calls. They can be called on every play. I don't think they should be when they have very little to do with the play. However, there are egregious examples where the play wouldn't have happened without a hold. Those should be called. I think that qualifies. Maybe you don't.

Fans that complain abut holding calls more than 5 minutes after they happened are the worst. Pass Interference gets a week, if it heavily impacted the game. Same goes for bad calls. Most don't deserve a second mention, but if they happened in a critical moment, I think a fan get a week t event.

In general, teams don't lose because of penalties. Good calls, bad calls balance out, and better teams win more games. If you start down the rabbit hole of blaming penalties, it never ends. There are so many plays and so many calls that could go either way.

Any call that creates or eliminates a rule is exempted.