Gotta get up earlier for work now, so it was a decision between sleep and being ok at work today or being sleep deprived and pissed off at myself. I choose option 1 and feel good about it.Originally Posted by gebobs
Gotta get up earlier for work now, so it was a decision between sleep and being ok at work today or being sleep deprived and pissed off at myself. I choose option 1 and feel good about it.
COMING SOON...
gebobs (11-24-2015)
I wrote this when i was still ticked off
To expand on that point,Watkins - Elite WRs get open, sticking your hand up when you're double covered and giving up on your routes doesn't count as being open, and generally it's bad form if you just give up on your route and the ball is in your QB's hand. This is why you were barely used last night
Basically BB dedicated last night to taking away Watkins. He had him double covered all night with a cornerback and safety. He was doing basically the same thing with Clay, only it was a Linebacker and the other safety, or a DE or a CB, depending on defense. Because BB had both DE's playing 2gap, and/or spying on Taylor he was covering everything except for all the other WRs and Shady, who he inexplicably did NOT gameplan for. Woods, Shady and Hogan should have had a MONSTER night (shady got his, heck if he caught that deep pass he would have had an insane night, Hogan was a couple of missed passes away from his, so it's not like they didn't get anything the pats were giving them, its just the pats were giving them a LOT more then we took). Roman didn't adjust, and actually dialed back the plays to Shady as the game went on (no clue why), Tyrod looked confused when his primary WR was covered (usually watkins or clay), it wasn't till later he started to find Woods and Hogan, that again rolls back to Roman not adjusting and helping out the QB.
Watkins didn't help himself by dogging it all night, man was that some lazy play. I'm glad MNF didn't play any more iso cams of watkins, from what i saw on the "other" plays he was dogging it and lazily waving his hand as if expecting to be thrown to while blanketed by the guy he isn't bothering to get open against, to say nothing for the safety over top. The patriots basically were begging TT to kill them with 10 yard slants, hooks and outs to Hogan and Woods, and we didn't even try to do it.
Last edited by Ingtar33; 11-24-2015 at 04:23 PM.
My wife told me that if I had a dollar for every girl who found me unattractive, girls would find me VERY attractive.
MY WIFE SAID THAT!!!
cookie G (11-25-2015),TacklingDummy (11-24-2015)
Points off for not including **** in all four comments.
YardRat Wall of Fame
#56 DARRYL TALLEY #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS
I thanked this post, but I wouldn't necessarily consider a penalty that coverts a 3rd and 11 (for example) to a 3rd and 1 'limited'. Penalty yardage is one thing, but under no circumstances should a penalty automatically result in a first down if the yardage isn't sufficient to obtain it. If they want to call defensive holding worth a five-yard walk-off, than that's what it is...five yards, spot the ball, and refigure the down and distance.
Duke Williams … I hate the player. Would be all for cutting him and signing a less athletic vet that actually had football instincts.
Seriously, I'd take Jim Leonard tomorrow over the scrub.
Victor7 (11-25-2015)
No, and why would it? It's like saying the offside rule gives any DL the ability to just run across the line before the snap with a limited punishment. 10 yards and a free play isn't punishment enough for you?
The issue with defensive holding is that it can happen almost anywhere on the field. With DPI, there are all manner of restrictions on it: No DPI behind the LOS, no DPI if the ball is uncatchable, no DPI if the pass is tipped in the air. Even though that doesn't work all the time, the intention at least is that it's a harsher penalty because you know it meaningfully impacted the play. Defensive holding can be called on the tiniest hand fight on a route the QB doesn't even look for. Automatic first is too much for a penalty that doesn't directly affect the outcome of the play IMO
Billszone 2013 Prediction Contest winner!
Well the first issue is that they blow the play dead if you have an unimpeded path to the QB/RB so that's one of the reasons why they don't. Also there is nothing to gain by being offside for the defense. On a holding situation as I described you save your team yards and potentially keep points off the board. Being in an offside position doesn't offer either of those benefits to a defense.
That's not an issue, imo. If you can't cover the guy, then you can't cover him. It's complete crap that you should be allowed to grab a hold of him or his jersey because you're slow and can't keep up. Also I can't think of a single instance where I've seen holding called on hand fighting except when a DB grabbed the WR's forearm and yanked on him which is blatantly obvious.
Could not disagree more.
The DL more than held their own the whole game. In fact both Dareus and Mario missed lots of time with injuries and the back ups kept the pressure and the run game in check. Hughes was a one man wrecking crew
The only players to blame on D are the failure that is Duke Williams and Graham for his flag and poor tackling. Everyone else played a great game IMO
jimmifli (11-25-2015),mysticsoto (11-25-2015)
This
How many times have you seen a minuscule hold or grab of an arm away from the play result in an automatic first down ?? Its stupid. They should have a provision on the rule that if the penalty occurs away from the play its not a 1st down. Give the 5 yards but no automatic set of downs. It makes no sense.
The stupid part, to me, is watching someone grab a jersey and then complain about getting called. And when you watch a jersey getting tugged..that is by far the vast majority of the calls. When you get into things like whether it might have impeded a receiver...it gets worse, because you open it up to even more of a judgment call.
Keep it black and white and make your players learn the rule. Keep your palms open and don't clasp your fingers.
God, I think I'd be going Herman Boone on some players.
You grab a jersey while you're blocking or covering a receiver..you run a mile;
you block in the back on a kick off or punt return, you run a mile.
It gets down to sloppy football. Adapt, discipline yourself or keep getting called.
Victor7 (11-25-2015)
BALLS: Anbody willing to stay up to watch the refs flop around like a live fish on a hot pan, what an embarrassment.
Goats: Refs watching NE's safeties / corners never look back for passes while running into the Bills WR. They only called one penalty (P. Interference) for that event on NE & that one wasn't near a scoring play.
It gives you leverage over the lineman and a much easier path to the QB.
No one's saying you should be "allowed" to grab a hold of him, silly. We're talking about what the appropriate penalty is for that infraction.That's not an issue, imo. If you can't cover the guy, then you can't cover him. It's complete crap that you should be allowed to grab a hold of him or his jersey because you're slow and can't keep up. Also I can't think of a single instance where I've seen holding called on hand fighting except when a DB grabbed the WR's forearm and yanked on him which is blatantly obvious.
Ok, which gives the defense a guarantee of nothing.
Well aware and that is the appropriate penalty. If you can't cover the guy, and you break the rules its going to cost you and it should. Either get better or scheme better.No one's saying you should be "allowed" to grab a hold of him, silly. We're talking about what the appropriate penalty is for that infraction.
Ok, and when was that the standard for anything?
Why is it the appropriate penalty? As I said earlier, the automatic first for pass interference makes sense because the ball is actually in the air to the wideout at that point, and they still don't call it if the pass was so wild that the infraction doesn't affect the play.Well aware and that is the appropriate penalty. If you can't cover the guy, and you break the rules its going to cost you and it should. Either get better or scheme better.
Take the extreme example: What if defensive holding was an automatic ejection? You could still sit there with your cliches saying "If you can't cover the guy, and you break the rules its going to cost you and it should. Either get better or scheme better."
Re-read the example I provided in my original response as to my issue with the lessening of the penalty. In that scenario there is something the defense is guaranteed to gain by taking the holding penalty, in your counter you don't approach that standard. If you didn't agree with it in the first place, that's one thing but when you responded in kind I was assuming you accepted the premise.
Because defensive holding is allowing the defense to basically guarantee something won't happen (like an offensive player get deep for a big gain or score). Whether that's away from where the play ended up going or not isn't really relevant because the hold negated what may have been able to develop.Why is it the appropriate penalty? As I said earlier, the automatic first for pass interference makes sense because the ball is actually in the air to the wideout at that point, and they still don't call it if the pass was so wild that the infraction doesn't affect the play.
Take the extreme example: What if defensive holding was an automatic ejection? You could still sit there with your cliches saying "If you can't cover the guy, and you break the rules its going to cost you and it should. Either get better or scheme better."
No thanks on the extreme example, this isn't a discussion that needs hyperbole. I think we can hash this out on the basis of what the penalty is or isn't. If you have to take it to that level to try and make your point then I'm not sure you have one at all.
Not a cliche either, it's simply the reality. You want to change the rules to excuse somebody breaking them because they aren't talented enough or coached up well enough to play the game within the confines of the rules. I don't see a legitimate reason for that.
I love when people say Taylor sucked and couldn't get the ball to anyone and then call out the receivers. Can't really pick them both.
The defense isn't guaranteed anything by taking a defensive holding penalty. The pass might not come that direction. In fact there might not even be a pass at all, it is possible to get called for defensive holding on a run play.
Awarding an automatic first without any conditions on what "may have been able to develop" is too severe. Why is it that the defense holding deserves an auto first but offensively holding allows them to replay the down? Why is holding a wideout treated so much worse then holding a pass rusher?
It's a pretty obvious point. You like to defend the status quo simply because it is the status quo. If the status quo was different and extreme, would you still defend it? If so, why? And if not, what is different?No thanks on the extreme example, this isn't a discussion that needs hyperbole. I think we can hash this out on the basis of what the penalty is or isn't. If you have to take it to that level to try and make your point then I'm not sure you have one at all.
Because the penalty is too harsh for the infraction, and indeed is harsher on the defense then the offense for the same infraction. The NFL changes the rules all the time when they find that a rule is too harsh, too lenient, or too confusing to enforce.Not a cliche either, it's simply the reality. You want to change the rules to excuse somebody breaking them because they aren't talented enough or coached up well enough to play the game within the confines of the rules. I don't see a legitimate reason for that.
Disagree, they are guaranteed that the player being held will not be making a play.
Offensive holding also negates any positive yardage gained which is why defensive holding costs you a first-down. It's the counter balance to what it is on the other side. It's not, it's treated almost entirely the same way.Awarding an automatic first without any conditions on what "may have been able to develop" is too severe. Why is it that the defense holding deserves an auto first but offensively holding allows them to replay the down? Why is holding a wideout treated so much worse then holding a pass rusher?
Has nothing to do with the status quo, in fact I'm all about changing the status quo whenever possible, but you don't just do that without a legitimate reason. There hasn't been one presented yet. The status quo isn't different or extreme so the what if hyperbole scenario you're trying to come up with has no relevance.It's a pretty obvious point. You like to defend the status quo simply because it is the status quo. If the status quo was different and extreme, would you still defend it? If so, why? And if not, what is different?
Why? Because you say it is? You have yet to point one actual reason on how to quantify "harshness" other than your interpretation. They also change it as the game changes and evolves or as new scenarios emerge. None of those really give credence to a rule being changes because you think it should without some of kind of legitimate measurement.Because the penalty is too harsh for the infraction, and indeed is harsher on the defense then the offense for the same infraction. The NFL changes the rules all the time when they find that a rule is too harsh, too lenient, or too confusing to enforce.
The offensive holding is a great analogy, Illumy...If defensive holding is so egregious that it requires 'double-dipping' (yardage and a first down awarded) maybe the offense should be penalized yardage and loss of down when that's called also.
What was that call that Watkins wasn't out of bounds on the final play?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
