2014-15 NFC North/NFL Thread

[jsglow]

One more thought.  If Rodgers pulls off a miracle '120 minutes' and lifts the Lombardi trophy it'll be one of the biggest sports stories of the last 50 years.  Mind you. I don't think it's remotely likely. But it's fun to dream.

[JWags85]

I don't know what changed, but it's almost as though someone laid hands on his left calf midway through the 3rd quarter.  I really wonder if he made up his mind that I'm going to move around and leave the pocket if I need to, no more babying it.  I'm not saying that's what happened, but all of a sudden he was willing to at least step out out of the pocket when the situation called for it, like the TD to Richard Rodgers.  I don't know what else explains it.  Maybe it just loosened up enough that he could play differently.

Toradol is a hell of a drug.

[HutchwasClutch]

I knew I shouldn't have watched the NFL Network recap of the game with Deion and Irvin.  Even Rich Eisen was joining in on the weeping over the Dez Bryant incompletion.  Fair to question what happened on that play?  Absolutely.  What's sickening is there's no pretense of neutrality, the Cowboy bias is just in your face.  And this is the official network of the entire league?  Ridiculous.  

[jsglow]

Bottom line. He didn't catch the ball based on the rules.  As soon as the ground popped it out incomplete was the only possible ruling.  Bears/Lions.  Done. Most experts I've heard agree.

Personally I think a rule tweak is in order because it was one heck of a 'catch'.

[GooooMarquette]

 Pretty ironic that the Cowboys of all teams are whining about a call.  If the officials had gotten it right the week before, they would have been watching yesterday's game on TV.

And just to show that the TV commentators are biased toward the Cowboys, nobody is even mentioning the pass interference call against the Packers in the end zone...the one that was diplomatically called 'ticky tack' by Mike Periera.  That weak call led to a Cowboys TD on the next play.

[hairy worthen]

One more thought.  If Rodgers pulls off a miracle '120 minutes' and lifts the Lombardi trophy it'll be one of the biggest sports stories of the last 50 years.  Mind you. I don't think it's remotely likely. But it's fun to dream.

Miracle?  After the New England game Green Bay was the clear cut favorite to win the super bowl. It's not like this is Jacksonville going up to Seattle. The Packers could very well win this game.

Here are the Quarterbacks Seattle has faced since their “resurgence”

Alex Smith (Lost)
Stanton   
Kaepernick
Sanchez
Kaepernick
Lindley
Hill
Newton

All of those teams either sucked or were in decline when Seattle played them with the exception of Carolina. None of those QB's or teams were offensive juggarnauts. Seattle is the flavor of the last few weeks with "experts", but don't buy all the hype. This will be a closer match up than you think.

[MerrittsMustache]

One more thought.  If Rodgers pulls off a miracle '120 minutes' and lifts the Lombardi trophy it'll be one of the biggest sports stories of the last 50 years.  Mind you. I don't think it's remotely likely. But it's fun to dream.

The best QB in football winning a Super Bowl with a sore leg? Not to burst your bubble, but that's a blip on the radar in a 50-year window of sports stories. It wouldn't even be the biggest sports story of this NFL season.

[NavinRJohnson]

All of those teams either sucked or were in decline when Seattle played them with the exception of Carolina.

No, Carolina definitely sucks (I do like their LBs though).

[MerrittsMustache]

Bottom line. He didn't catch the ball based on the rules.  As soon as the ground popped it out incomplete was the only possible ruling.  Bears/Lions.  Done. Most experts I've heard agree.

Personally I think a rule tweak is in order because it was one heck of a 'catch'.

The issue is that the NFL's rule are supposed to make it clear-cut for the officials but the phrasing of "an act common to the game" is open for interpretation. To many people, having possession and stretching the ball out is an act common to the game. The officials saw it differently.

The interesting thing is that there were 4 games this weekend and happenings in two of them will likely lead directly to rule changes this offseason (catch rule and "substitution deception").

Overlooked, but the biggest play of this game was actually when Peppers stripped Murray. If he doesn't make that play, Murray is gone and it's 21-10 and we have an entirely different ballgame. Instead, GB took over and ended up cutting the lead to 1 with a FG.

[Benny B]

The issue is that the NFL's rule are supposed to make it clear-cut for the officials but the phrasing of "an act common to the game" is open for interpretation. To many people, having possession and stretching the ball out is an act common to the game. The officials saw it differently.

The interesting thing is that there were 4 games this weekend and happenings in two of them will likely lead directly to rule changes this offseason (catch rule and "substitution deception").

Overlooked, but the biggest play of this game was actually when Peppers stripped Murray. If he doesn't make that play, Murray is gone and it's 21-10 and we have an entirely different ballgame. Instead, GB took over and ended up cutting the lead to 1 with a FG.

Dez got three steps down and extended...  the problem is, for two of those steps, the ball was not under control.  Credit Sam Shields for getting a hand in there just long enough to keep the ball moving around.  As Periera said, possession is one thing, control is another.

I don't care what the Calvin Johnson rule says about "process" and "going to the ground."  If you're juggling the ball going to the ground, you finally get it under control long enough to take one step before you hit the ground which causes the ball to "jump" out of your hands... even under the rules pre-Johnson, that's not a catch.

(EDIT) Watch the replay... count the number of steps Johnson takes after he gains initial control of the ball.  Hint: the answer is 1.

[wadesworld]

Dez got three steps down and extended...  the problem is, for two of those steps, the ball was not under control.  Credit Sam Shields for getting a hand in there just long enough to keep the ball moving around.  As Periera said, possession is one thing, control is another.

I don't care what the Calvin Johnson rule says about "process" and "going to the ground."  If you're juggling the ball going to the ground, you finally get it under control long enough to take one step before you hit the ground which causes the ball to "jump" out of your hands... even under the rules pre-Johnson, that's not a catch.

Watch the replay... count the number of steps Johnson takes before he gains initial control of the ball.  Hint: the answer is 1.

Exactly.  That is what nobody is talking about.  It's the combination of him not having complete control of the ball for his first step, plus his third step is really just him falling to the ground so his leg is obviously going to contact the ground at some point.  The ball then comes out with him having controlled the ball for all of one step.  Incomplete pass.

The PI call in the end zone was a bad one, but there were 2 others that really frustrated me (and I try not to get upset about reffing calls because in the end they always even out).  One was the late hit call on Lang.  I get the call itself if he was the only person to continue on after the play, but the defender who was tackling Adams threw Adams to the ground after Lang blocked one of the other Cowboys.  If Lang's hit was late, then the defender's hit on Adams was lateer, but I guess there's no later hit penalty in the NFL.  The other was the holding they called on I believe Jones on a punt return in maybe the 3rd quarter, which wasn't a hold at all, and then they threw a flag for a late hit on a Cowboy player, and never even addressed the 2nd flag that they threw.  They acted as if it was never even thrown, despite being thrown after the play, and after the flag for holding was called.  Odd.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I knew I shouldn't have watched the NFL Network recap of the game with Deion and Irvin.  Even Rich Eisen was joining in on the weeping over the Dez Bryant incompletion.  Fair to question what happened on that play?  Absolutely.  What's sickening is there's no pretense of neutrality, the Cowboy bias is just in your face.  And this is the official network of the entire league?  Ridiculous.  

Packers fans can't say jack. The media is constantly chocking on the Packers and Rodgers collective dick. The one time the media doesn't go your way and you complain. For the record, by the rule book I agree it was not a catch. But it's a bad rule to begin with.

[hairy worthen]

Overlooked, but the biggest play of this game was actually when Peppers stripped Murray. If he doesn't make that play, Murray is gone and it's 21-10 and we have an entirely different ballgame. Instead, GB took over and ended up cutting the lead to 1 with a FG.

Announcers love to say stuff like this, but you do not know he would have scored on that play. There was a safety back and another corner in the vicinity. You can play that what if game all day if you want.  What would have happened if Brad Jones doesn't get a boneheaded penalty on third down of the Cowboys second possession.  They would have punted and Green Bay possibly goes up 14-0 early in the game and we are talking about a possible blow out.

[forgetful]

Packers fans can't say jack. The media is constantly chocking on the Packers and Rodgers collective dick. The one time the media doesn't go your way and you complain. For the record, by the rule book I agree it was not a catch. But it's a bad rule to begin with.

I see a lot of people calling it a bad rule.  I disagree and always have.  It is a great rule.  If I was the receiver in that same situation, I would not consider that catching the ball.  As a kid when my brother and I practiced diving catches/difficult catches, we wouldn't have counted it as a catch if when going to the ground we lost it. 

Catching the ball should be universally obvious.  If there is any question in my opinion it is not a catch.  When he went to the ground, the ball clearly hit the ground and he lost it...not a catch...never.  To change the rule would be redefining what a catch is.

[JWags85]

I see a lot of people calling it a bad rule.  I disagree and always have.  It is a great rule.  If I was the receiver in that same situation, I would not consider that catching the ball.  As a kid when my brother and I practiced diving catches/difficult catches, we wouldn't have counted it as a catch if when going to the ground we lost it. 

Oh, well in that case, why are we even having this silly discussion?

[brandx]

Packers fans can't say jack. The media is constantly chocking on the Packers and Rodgers collective dick. The one time the media doesn't go your way and you complain. For the record, by the rule book I agree it was not a catch. But it's a bad rule to begin with.

You're right. As a GB fan, I think we are treated more than fair.

[MerrittsMustache]

Oh, well in that case, why are we even having this silly discussion?

My brother and I counted banked-in jumpers as misses when we played one-on-one in the driveway. I'm trying to petition the NBA and NCAA to follow suit.

[wadesworld]

My brother and I counted banked-in jumpers as misses when we played one-on-one in the driveway. I'm trying to petition the NBA and NCAA to follow suit.

BUT do they count if you call your bank?  Does the call have to come before the release of the shot or can it be after you realize you had a horrible release on the shot and that's the only chance for it to go in?

[MerrittsMustache]

BUT do they count if you call your bank?  Does the call have to come before the release of the shot or can it be after you realize you had a horrible release on the shot and that's the only chance for it to go in?

No calling of banks allowed.

Banking only allowed on lay-ups.

If there is any dispute about a particular shot being considered a lay-up, the "do over" rule is immediately invoked.

[wadesworld]

No calling of banks allowed.

Banking only allowed on lay-ups.

If there is any dispute about a particular shot being considered a lay-up, the "do over" rule is immediately invoked.

Oh come on now.  You'd take away like 1/4 of Dwyane Wade's made field goals.  Crafty shot, if intentionally done.  Has to be before the release though.

[GooooMarquette]

I think the NCAA should allow it only if the player calls it first.  And for the record, I heard Juan call "bank" before his recent three.  People misinterpreted his holding his palms up and shrugging as an acknowledgement that it was unintentional, but he was really saying "I told you.  What else do you want me to show you guys?"

 

[jsglow]

Two things.  Rodgers isn't playing on a 'sore leg'. He's playing on a relatively severe calf sprain that has materially limited his game if not his effectiveness. Second,  I suspect no rule change will take place.  The beauty of the Calvin Johnson rule is that it seeks to remove interpretation from the call. If when you fall to the ground and the ball gets dislodged and actually touches the playing surface it's ruled incomplete.  Dez did all this in one continuous motion. Therefore incomplete actually was an easy call. Many sources posted the exact rule;  the play fit perfectly

[MerrittsMustache]

Two things.  Rodgers isn't playing on a 'sore leg'. He's playing on a relatively severe calf sprain that has materially limited his game if not his effectiveness.

I know that his injury is more serious but in the grand scheme of memorable sports stories between 1965 and today, Rodgers is playing with a sore leg.

Second,  I suspect no rule change will take place.  The beauty of the Calvin Johnson rule is that it seeks to remove interpretation from the call. If when you fall to the ground and the ball gets dislodged and actually touches the playing surface it's ruled incomplete.  Dez did all this in one continuous motion. Therefore incomplete actually was an easy call. Many sources posted the exact rule;  the play fit perfectly

If the call was that simple then it wouldn't have been analyzed and overanalyzed as much as it has been over the last 24 hours. Mike Pereira even admitted that Bryant extended his arm but then said he didn't extend it enough for it to be considered a "football move." That certainly leaves a lot open to interpretation (seems like he either extended his arm or he didn't - cut and dry). The rule will be altered this offseason. Mark it down!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Two things.  Rodgers isn't playing on a 'sore leg'. He's playing on a relatively severe calf sprain that has materially limited his game if not his effectiveness. Second,  I suspect no rule change will take place.  The beauty of the Calvin Johnson rule is that it seeks to remove interpretation from the call. If when you fall to the ground and the ball gets dislodged and actually touches the playing surface it's ruled incomplete.  Dez did all this in one continuous motion. Therefore incomplete actually was an easy call. Many sources posted the exact rule;  the play fit perfectly

Rodgers is a HOF player. He's the best QB in the league.

But, you're overblowing the injury.

Is it a big deal? Sure. It's a big story.

Is it one of the biggest potential sports stories/narratives in the past 50 years? No. No it's not.

[wadesworld]

I know that his injury is more serious but in the grand scheme of memorable sports stories between 1965 and today, Rodgers is playing with a sore leg.


If the call was that simple then it wouldn't have been analyzed and overanalyzed as much as it has been over the last 24 hours. Mike Pereira even admitted that Bryant extended his arm but then said he didn't extend it enough for it to be considered a "football move." That certainly leaves a lot open to interpretation (seems like he either extended his arm or he didn't - cut and dry). The rule will be altered this offseason. Mark it down!

What I immediately said was that he never actually extended the ball to the point of it being a football move.  What I mean by that is sure, he moved his arm out away from his body, but he did it in a way that you would do if you were breaking your fall, which he was, and which I don't consider to be a football move.  When I think of extending the ball to reach for a touchdown, I'm thinking the player has the ball at the very least extended past his shoulder, and probably past his eye level.  Bryant had the ball basically where his arm pit is, just extended towards the ground, not in a way that was reaching for a touchdown, like he tried to claim.