The NFL Thread
- Thread starter hutchiniho
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2014
- Messages
- 785
The last play was so mind numbingly stupid it’s hard to say what was going on. Apparently Ben wanted to spike the ball but was told by Haley to run the play. The rest is comedy gold.
I’ve never seen a team in any sport have a luckier run than the Pats the past 5 years. The Seahawks not handing the ball to Lynch 3 times on the 1. Atlanta’s play calling last year when they had them beat. Dean Pees brain freeze when the Ravens had them down 14 twice and beat in the playoffs. It’s absolutely amazing!
I’ve never seen a team in any sport have a luckier run than the Pats the past 5 years. The Seahawks not handing the ball to Lynch 3 times on the 1. Atlanta’s play calling last year when they had them beat. Dean Pees brain freeze when the Ravens had them down 14 twice and beat in the playoffs. It’s absolutely amazing!
Last edited:
Agree. For me the ground itself shouldn't be able to "dispossess" the player i.e. if they catch the ball and then the act of hitting the ground knocks it loose, that should still be a catch IMO. Or maybe if they hit the ground and the ball comes flying out then that's a fumble, but the way like it was yesterday, where the ball hit the ground and came slightly loose but was still basically in his hands, that has to be a catch all day long IMO
That should have been overturned too. The rule needs to be changed, because both of them should be catches but neither are under the rules at the moment.
The officials can't give it a TD because they disagree with the rule or think it should be something else.
I mean, I don't agree with the rule where if you fumble the ball out of bounds in the endzone ,like Carr last night, and it results in a touchback and gives the ball to the other team, but that doesn't mean it's not a touchback.
The officials can't give it a TD because they disagree with the rule or think it should be something else.
I mean, I don't agree with the rule where if you fumble the ball out of bounds in the endzone ,like Carr last night, and it results in a touchback and gives the ball to the other team, but that doesn't mean it's not a touchback.
Yeah sorry, I should've been clearer, I'm not saying the refs should just go against the rule as some sort of protest, obviously they have to apply the laws as they are written whether they agree with it or not. What I'm saying is what I think the rule should be. Although as ravenspurs said above, the rule itself is so unclear/ambiguous anyway it's hard for the refs to really decide what they are and aren't supposed to enforce.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2014
- Messages
- 785
I think the clincher is that it was called a TD on the field. The replay rules were changed a few years ago give more weight to the official call on the field rather than the replay official in the booth. There has to be clear video evidence to overturn the call. Was there? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact by the video evidence you could argue the exact opposite. The call on the field should have stood.
I completely agree. The absolute deal-breaker for me with regards to video replays being used in any sport is that unless it's absolutely clear cut in the replay that the original decision was wrong, then the call on the field has to stand. For me it isn't clear cut that he lost control of the ball and therefore the call on the field (TD) should've stood.
The problem is, it's hard to decide what "clear cut" evidence is in a replay when the rule is written such that it is inherently unclear.
The problem is, it's hard to decide what "clear cut" evidence is in a replay when the rule is written such that it is inherently unclear.
Congrats to @Bowlesinho on winning the league this year.
Silver and Black Monday...
Goodbye Jack, Chucky's coming back (well most likely).
I didn't mind JDR too much - a good guy but the Raiders need to go for it now. Can Gruden deliver if he comes back? No idea. It'll be fun as well as crazy, stuff might get broken, players might reach new heights. It's a big gamble, but there's something fitting about it lol. It's like an episode of Quantum Leap. Either way, I'll take that over the stink of most of the last umpteen years. Besides, the Raiders are masters at dysfunction!
Should be goodbye OC Todd Downing as well - finally! FINALLY!
Goodbye Jack, Chucky's coming back (well most likely).
I didn't mind JDR too much - a good guy but the Raiders need to go for it now. Can Gruden deliver if he comes back? No idea. It'll be fun as well as crazy, stuff might get broken, players might reach new heights. It's a big gamble, but there's something fitting about it lol. It's like an episode of Quantum Leap. Either way, I'll take that over the stink of most of the last umpteen years. Besides, the Raiders are masters at dysfunction!
Should be goodbye OC Todd Downing as well - finally! FINALLY!
Silver and Black Monday...
Goodbye Jack, Chucky's coming back (well most likely).
I didn't mind JDR too much - a good guy but the Raiders need to go for it now. Can Gruden deliver if he comes back? No idea. It'll be fun as well as crazy, stuff might get broken, players might reach new heights. It's a big gamble, but there's something fitting about it lol. It's like an episode of Quantum Leap. Either way, I'll take that over the stink of most of the last umpteen years. Besides, the Raiders are masters at dysfunction!
Should be goodbye OC Todd Downing as well - finally! FINALLY!
Goodbye Jack, Chucky's coming back (well most likely).
I didn't mind JDR too much - a good guy but the Raiders need to go for it now. Can Gruden deliver if he comes back? No idea. It'll be fun as well as crazy, stuff might get broken, players might reach new heights. It's a big gamble, but there's something fitting about it lol. It's like an episode of Quantum Leap. Either way, I'll take that over the stink of most of the last umpteen years. Besides, the Raiders are masters at dysfunction!
Should be goodbye OC Todd Downing as well - finally! FINALLY!
Coaching on both sides of the ball has been dreadful - Norton Jnr biting the bullet early but Downing has been a disaster and a poor appointment indeed. That being said, after Carr's mega deal he has regressed - was this down primary to bad play calling, poor support from the wideouts or our O-Line massively regressing? Perhaps all three but you know the pressure will be on him next year to perform or serious questions will be asked considering his pay packet.
Gruden potentially coming in would be such an intriguing storyline - still gutted about how it panned out in '03 losing to his Bucs side but if the fire is still in his belly then there's definitely enough to work with for us to bounce back in style, coupled with a top 10 draft pick (possibly 9th on a coin toss with the 49'ers) so i'm eager to know what route Davis & McKenzie will take here.
On a final note, congrats to @Bowlesinho on a great win - I had a bit of a shocker this year although thankfully made up with winning my NFL.com fantasy league.
So in a completely unexpected and totally shocking move, the Bears have fired Fox 
I'm in two minds about this to be honest. On the one hand, there has been some absolutely baffling decisions making from him at times and the terrible 14-32 record obviously makes it hard to give him too much credit. However, I think the problems with the Bears run far deeper than just the head coach and I feel like a lot of criticism has been unfairly been stuck on him instead of the institutional failings at the organization. For example, yes his record is bad, but at least some of that blame has to lie with the front office because he can only do so much with the woeful tools he's been given. There has been a lot of whispers about him having absolutely no input at all with regards to recruitment and who gets let go etc. and supposedly was completely out of the loop on the whole Trubisky thing and had Mike "the human thumb" Glennon forced on him as well, to the tune of 18m guaranteed
.
I dunno, I haven't got the time or will to get into all the things to complain about with the Bears that have nothing to do with John Fox so I do feel bad for him, especially as he does seem like a nice guy and the players clearly like him and were still committed to playing for him until the end, despite reports in the papers for the entire second half of the season that he was going to be fired at the end of the year.
They need a structural overhaul IMO and that starts with getting rid of Ryan Pace. He is at least equally responsible for the Bears' situation as Fox is and I'd actually argue he's even more responsible. But instead on the same day they fire Fox, they give Pace a brand new contract Just bizarre. The logic behind it seems to be that Trubisky was "his guy" and so they want to keep him on board until we can evaluate whether that was a good move or not. To me that's ridiculous because even if Trubisky turns out to be great, that doesn't undo all teh terrible decisions Pace has made besides that. Anyway. Rant over, for now.
I'm in two minds about this to be honest. On the one hand, there has been some absolutely baffling decisions making from him at times and the terrible 14-32 record obviously makes it hard to give him too much credit. However, I think the problems with the Bears run far deeper than just the head coach and I feel like a lot of criticism has been unfairly been stuck on him instead of the institutional failings at the organization. For example, yes his record is bad, but at least some of that blame has to lie with the front office because he can only do so much with the woeful tools he's been given. There has been a lot of whispers about him having absolutely no input at all with regards to recruitment and who gets let go etc. and supposedly was completely out of the loop on the whole Trubisky thing and had Mike "the human thumb" Glennon forced on him as well, to the tune of 18m guaranteed
.I dunno, I haven't got the time or will to get into all the things to complain about with the Bears that have nothing to do with John Fox so I do feel bad for him, especially as he does seem like a nice guy and the players clearly like him and were still committed to playing for him until the end, despite reports in the papers for the entire second half of the season that he was going to be fired at the end of the year.
They need a structural overhaul IMO and that starts with getting rid of Ryan Pace. He is at least equally responsible for the Bears' situation as Fox is and I'd actually argue he's even more responsible. But instead on the same day they fire Fox, they give Pace a brand new contract
Just bizarre. The logic behind it seems to be that Trubisky was "his guy" and so they want to keep him on board until we can evaluate whether that was a good move or not. To me that's ridiculous because even if Trubisky turns out to be great, that doesn't undo all teh terrible decisions Pace has made besides that. Anyway. Rant over, for now.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 3,260
So in a completely unexpected and totally shocking move, the Bears have fired Fox
I'm in two minds about this to be honest. On the one hand, there has been some absolutely baffling decisions making from him at times and the terrible 14-32 record obviously makes it hard to give him too much credit. However, I think the problems with the Bears run far deeper than just the head coach and I feel like a lot of criticism has been unfairly been stuck on him instead of the institutional failings at the organization. For example, yes his record is bad, but at least some of that blame has to lie with the front office because he can only do so much with the woeful tools he's been given. There has been a lot of whispers about him having absolutely no input at all with regards to recruitment and who gets let go etc. and supposedly was completely out of the loop on the whole Trubisky thing and had Mike "the human thumb" Glennon forced on him as well, to the tune of 18m guaranteed.
I dunno, I haven't got the time or will to get into all the things to complain about with the Bears that have nothing to do with John Fox so I do feel bad for him, especially as he does seem like a nice guy and the players clearly like him and were still committed to playing for him until the end, despite reports in the papers for the entire second half of the season that he was going to be fired at the end of the year.
They need a structural overhaul IMO and that starts with getting rid of Ryan Pace. He is at least equally responsible for the Bears' situation as Fox is and I'd actually argue he's even more responsible. But instead on the same day they fire Fox, they give Pace a brand new contract Just bizarre. The logic behind it seems to be that Trubisky was "his guy" and so they want to keep him on board until we can evaluate whether that was a good move or not. To me that's ridiculous because even if Trubisky turns out to be great, that doesn't undo all teh terrible decisions Pace has made besides that. Anyway. Rant over, for now.
I'm in two minds about this to be honest. On the one hand, there has been some absolutely baffling decisions making from him at times and the terrible 14-32 record obviously makes it hard to give him too much credit. However, I think the problems with the Bears run far deeper than just the head coach and I feel like a lot of criticism has been unfairly been stuck on him instead of the institutional failings at the organization. For example, yes his record is bad, but at least some of that blame has to lie with the front office because he can only do so much with the woeful tools he's been given. There has been a lot of whispers about him having absolutely no input at all with regards to recruitment and who gets let go etc. and supposedly was completely out of the loop on the whole Trubisky thing and had Mike "the human thumb" Glennon forced on him as well, to the tune of 18m guaranteed
.I dunno, I haven't got the time or will to get into all the things to complain about with the Bears that have nothing to do with John Fox so I do feel bad for him, especially as he does seem like a nice guy and the players clearly like him and were still committed to playing for him until the end, despite reports in the papers for the entire second half of the season that he was going to be fired at the end of the year.
They need a structural overhaul IMO and that starts with getting rid of Ryan Pace. He is at least equally responsible for the Bears' situation as Fox is and I'd actually argue he's even more responsible. But instead on the same day they fire Fox, they give Pace a brand new contract
Just bizarre. The logic behind it seems to be that Trubisky was "his guy" and so they want to keep him on board until we can evaluate whether that was a good move or not. To me that's ridiculous because even if Trubisky turns out to be great, that doesn't undo all teh terrible decisions Pace has made besides that. Anyway. Rant over, for now.
The Bears are paying for years of poor drafting amongst other things and Pace inherited an ageing roster devoid of talent.
This Head coaching hire will make or break him, along with having to hit with picks in the draft and hopefully find FA aquisitions like Hicks (who by the way, has played at an all pro level this year on a D that quietly over achieved for the most part)
Trubisky should give any Bears fan hope, but he now needs to be built around. Solidify the O-line and give him some play makers at the WR position. A decent Offensive Coordinator will help to considering the Hobbit has just left us and joined Miami.
Big 6 months incoming for Ryan Pace and the Bears.
I get that he's "tied" to the fate of Trubisky and I suppose has been given this coach hire as a final opportunity given that Fox supposedly wasn't "his guy" as they say. However, I'm not entirely convinced he should've been given this chance. Yes, Trubisky looks like he has a lot of potential and may well go on to be the franchise QB they've been desperate for for years, but even if he does, I'm not sure that that necessarily overrides all the other stuff he's done. He came into the job on the basis of wanting to build from the draft, and that's fine, but his record hasn't been THAT good. He's made some good picks, most notably probably Jordan Howard off the top of my head, and obviously Trubisky, but he's also made some bad picks too. Then when you look at the free agent market he's been absolutely woeful for the most part. Combine that with some of the baffling decisions to cut some key players as well and overall I'd say he's done OK at best, if not slightly below expectations even, but Trubisky has drummed up enoguh excitement/hype to distract people from the other failings.
OK so he inherited a bad roster and came in after years of mismanagement by others, but that defense applies to Fox as well does it not? The difference is Pace was the one who had control over the roster, with Fox having pretty much no input whatsoever if reports are to be believed. Like I say, I think the poor record was ultimately what made them ditch Fox but IMO Pace is equally culpable. I'm not necessarily saying they should fire him as well, just it seems like he's getting off very lightly almost purely down to the fact that he drafted Trubisky and I feel like giving him a 2 year extension the day they fire Fox sends out the message that Pace has been doing an outstanding job despite Fox fucking it up for him, which isn't really the case if you ask me. On the other hand, I've heard the argument that it'll help with head coach hires if the GM they're interviewing with is locked in for the duration of their proposed contract, which I can understand to an extent.
As you say, it will be an interesting 6 months or so one way or another. I'm still not entirely confident in Pace's ability to pick the right coach, even less so if there's interference from the non-football guys as seems to be the case, but I guess we'll see. Whatever happens we need to do whatever it takes to get at least one elite level WR in. As talented as Trubisky is, he's very inexperienced, even at NCAA level, and the Bears are setting him up to fail by giving him possibly the worst set of WRs in the NFL to throw to. When you compare that to what Watson has to work with at Houston it's not wonder he's looking the better player at first glance because he has people who can still get the catch and cover up for him even when his throws are off.
OK so he inherited a bad roster and came in after years of mismanagement by others, but that defense applies to Fox as well does it not? The difference is Pace was the one who had control over the roster, with Fox having pretty much no input whatsoever if reports are to be believed. Like I say, I think the poor record was ultimately what made them ditch Fox but IMO Pace is equally culpable. I'm not necessarily saying they should fire him as well, just it seems like he's getting off very lightly almost purely down to the fact that he drafted Trubisky and I feel like giving him a 2 year extension the day they fire Fox sends out the message that Pace has been doing an outstanding job despite Fox fucking it up for him, which isn't really the case if you ask me. On the other hand, I've heard the argument that it'll help with head coach hires if the GM they're interviewing with is locked in for the duration of their proposed contract, which I can understand to an extent.
As you say, it will be an interesting 6 months or so one way or another. I'm still not entirely confident in Pace's ability to pick the right coach, even less so if there's interference from the non-football guys as seems to be the case, but I guess we'll see. Whatever happens we need to do whatever it takes to get at least one elite level WR in. As talented as Trubisky is, he's very inexperienced, even at NCAA level, and the Bears are setting him up to fail by giving him possibly the worst set of WRs in the NFL to throw to. When you compare that to what Watson has to work with at Houston it's not wonder he's looking the better player at first glance because he has people who can still get the catch and cover up for him even when his throws are off.