Author Topic: Patriots 2017 season  (Read 76846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #255 on: December 18, 2017, 11:58:26 AM »

Online libermaniac

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2835
  • Tommy Points: 375
If the NFL is wondering why the ratings are going down, then they should watch the end of yesterday's Pats/Steelers game. Nobody knows what the rules are anymore. BTW, there is also the rule that the video evidence on the instant replay has to be indisputable to overturn the call on the field. Yes the ball moved, but his fingers on his right hand were under the ball the whole time.

If the ground can't cause a fumble, then how can it prevent a catch? I think the NFL needs to pick a side that is consistent regardless of the type of play.

BTW, the only reason why people are talking about this play, is because of the controversy surrounding it and common sense saying that it was a catch. If the refs called it a touchdown after the replay, then no one would have been questioning the catch today, because of how obvious it was.

My understanding is that they changed the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule to "receiver must maintain control through the fall."
"The ground cannot cause a fumble" is in fact not a rule. It's a convenient shortcut for the fact that if you're tackled and lose the ball when it hits the ground, you're down by contact in the second the ball touches the ground. The ground can, in fact, cause a fumble, if you fall without contact and lose the ball. It's not rocket science, but memespeak is dangerous like that.

Still has nothing to do with the situation, though. The rule is clear cut in that you can't use the ground to maintain control of the ball while making a catch, and that's exactly what happened here.

Not really.  He made the catch, but the NFL has a silly rule that you have to maintain control of . a catch all the way through hitting the ground.  It's a silly rule that has always caused head scratching decisions.  Had that play happened in the middle of the field and instead of him lunging for the end zone, for example, somebody popped the ball loose (because they dove low or it hit their foot, etc..) it would've been ruled a catch and a fumble.  He CLEARLY had possession.  He just reached out to put it over the goal line.   Or, had it been a running play and he reached across the end zone it would have been a TD before any lost possession.  But, the NFL has this silly rule that on a catch where you hit the ground, you need to maintain possession all the way through the play.  So, by the letter of the law it was the correct play.  Just another bad rule that benefitted the Patriots.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #256 on: December 18, 2017, 12:18:15 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11225
  • Tommy Points: 860
Refarding Jimmy G. The Pats got hosed on that trade. They traded away a franchise quality QB for a high 2nd rounder. Just awful trade.
I'm gonna call it right now: choosing 2 years of Brady over a decade of Jimmy was a mistake.

#HotTakeAlert

Smokin Hot Take!!!   ;)

The trade really was a high second rounder and Hoyer with SF paying most of Hoyer's salary.  There is no doubt in my mind that the whole thing was prearranged (and reports confirm this, see below).  Still, I know, it seems like there were opportunities to get more but no one really knows.

Regarding Garoppolo, I don't see how you can watch that game yesterday and think that he will ever be nearly as good as Brady (or Roethlisberger for that matter).  I think Garoppolo is about Alex Smith at best and let's see if he even achieves that.  He is playing fine but it has been the Bears, Texans, and Titans.  I predict he will not do as well against the Jags and Rams.

Quote
The original plan was to trade Hoyer to the Patriots, but the comp pick formula prevented that from happening. Instead, the 49ers released him, and he signed with the Patriots a day later. The decision to release Hoyer meant the 49ers were left to eat a sizable chunk of cap space. However, Hoyer’s deal did include offset language, which meant that whatever the Patriots paid him would offset what the 49ers owed him. He would not be able to “double dip,” in which the 49ers pay him his full salary and then the Patriots pay him a full salary as well.

Given that the 49ers were paying him a sizable chunk of money in 2017 and 2018, it is no surprise the Patriots are not going to pay him very much in either year. According to ESPN’s Field Yates, Hoyer’s deal is worth $4,441,000. Of that, the Patriots will pay him $476,000 this year, $915,000 next year, and $3.05 million in 2019. The 2019 money includes $2.85 million in base salary (with $1.5 million guaranteed) and a $200,000 roster bonus.

The 49ers signed Hoyer to a two-year deal, so only the 2017 and 2018 salaries matter. They are the league minimum (2017 is prorated version), so they only offset $1,391,000 in salary the 49ers are paying him. The 49ers were paying him $7.3 million this year, and $2.9 million next year. However, I believe the $476,000 would be subtracted from the $7.3 million, and the $915,000 would be subtracted from the $2.9 million.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #257 on: December 18, 2017, 01:11:27 PM »

Offline Cman

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13068
  • Tommy Points: 120
Refarding Jimmy G. The Pats got hosed on that trade. They traded away a franchise quality QB for a high 2nd rounder. Just awful trade.
I'm gonna call it right now: choosing 2 years of Brady over a decade of Jimmy was a mistake.

#HotTakeAlert

Maybe. But I don't think it is as simple as that, for multiple reasons. The two following are the most important, though:

1) Because of the hard cap, Pats could keep both Brady and JG, so you basically need to argue that the Pats should have sought a trade partner for Brady. Ooooof. As ruthless at BB and Kraft might seem, I can't see them doing that. They are a business, afterall, and know that the value of the Pats franchise is higher with Brady as part of it, forever.

2) The "Patriots Way" philosophy has shifted over the past year or so. They are very clearly in the "milk it now" approach for the next two years, as opposed to the "keep building for the future, always look to the future" approach that has characterized them for the past 10 years or so. The Pats made some pretty big moves this past summer, and I expect there will be equally if not bigger moves (involving trading picks or players) this next year, all with an eye to building a really great team for the next 2 years.  What all this has in mind is riding things out with Brady for the next couple years. Going with JG would be inconsistent with this change in strategy we've seen from the Pats.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #258 on: December 18, 2017, 01:13:03 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13002
  • Tommy Points: 1756
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
If he's not down by contact because nobody has touched him and he starts to move wouldn't it then be a fumble and recovery?

The knee is the impact with the ground. Not his hands. Right?

The process of James making the catch occurred while he was going to the ground so the knee doesn't matter in this case. If he had made the catch and then took a knee (like so many kick-off returners do), that would be different since he would have demonstrated control of the ball before choosing to be down on his own volition.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #259 on: December 18, 2017, 01:17:09 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
If the NFL is wondering why the ratings are going down, then they should watch the end of yesterday's Pats/Steelers game. Nobody knows what the rules are anymore. BTW, there is also the rule that the video evidence on the instant replay has to be indisputable to overturn the call on the field. Yes the ball moved, but his fingers on his right hand were under the ball the whole time.

If the ground can't cause a fumble, then how can it prevent a catch? I think the NFL needs to pick a side that is consistent regardless of the type of play.

BTW, the only reason why people are talking about this play, is because of the controversy surrounding it and common sense saying that it was a catch. If the refs called it a touchdown after the replay, then no one would have been questioning the catch today, because of how obvious it was.

My understanding is that they changed the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule to "receiver must maintain control through the fall."
"The ground cannot cause a fumble" is in fact not a rule. It's a convenient shortcut for the fact that if you're tackled and lose the ball when it hits the ground, you're down by contact in the second the ball touches the ground. The ground can, in fact, cause a fumble, if you fall without contact and lose the ball. It's not rocket science, but memespeak is dangerous like that.

Still has nothing to do with the situation, though. The rule is clear cut in that you can't use the ground to maintain control of the ball while making a catch, and that's exactly what happened here.

Not really.  He made the catch, but the NFL has a silly rule that you have to maintain control of . a catch all the way through hitting the ground.  It's a silly rule that has always caused head scratching decisions.  Had that play happened in the middle of the field and instead of him lunging for the end zone, for example, somebody popped the ball loose (because they dove low or it hit their foot, etc..) it would've been ruled a catch and a fumble.  He CLEARLY had possession.  He just reached out to put it over the goal line.   Or, had it been a running play and he reached across the end zone it would have been a TD before any lost possession.  But, the NFL has this silly rule that on a catch where you hit the ground, you need to maintain possession all the way through the play.  So, by the letter of the law it was the correct play.  Just another bad rule that benefitted the Patriots.
Oh wow. I guess I get that. If I were a Pittsburg fan I'd probably respond that the play then ends when he breaks the plane.

It just sorta seems there are multiple ways to justify a catch and only one way to justify it's not a catch and that's what they used.

It's pretty counter intuitive.

"So you're saying he made the catch and crossed the plane so it's a catch?" Nope. We're saying no catch.

"So you're saying he made the catch and he fumbled and recovered it?" Nope. We're saying no catch.

"So you're saying he made a catch and nobody touched him, but then he failed to make a football move so he's still in the process of making...."  Nope. We're saying no catch.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #260 on: December 18, 2017, 01:23:52 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Had that play happened in the middle of the field and instead of him lunging for the end zone, for example, somebody popped the ball loose (because they dove low or it hit their foot, etc..) it would've been ruled a catch and a fumble.
I don't know how to say this without being rude, but... do you actually watch the NFL on a regular basis?
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #261 on: December 18, 2017, 01:34:27 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Regarding Garoppolo, I don't see how you can watch that game yesterday and think that he will ever be nearly as good as Brady (or Roethlisberger for that matter).  I think Garoppolo is about Alex Smith at best and let's see if he even achieves that.  He is playing fine but it has been the Bears, Texans, and Titans.  I predict he will not do as well against the Jags and Rams.
The Titans have one of the top defenses in the league (the Steelers, by the way, don't -- that's since you mentioned yesterday's game). Garropolo marched right up their gut to set up his kicker for the game-winning FG. What he's done with the bunch of useless spare parts they served up to him in SF is impressive. Add to this the fact that he took over Brady's team last season and we had no dropoff, and I'm ready to call this.

Also, Garropolo is nothing like Alex Smith. If anything he's  the polar opposite of Alex Smith. He's a QB who will make things happen to win, not just someone who you can trust to not lose you the game.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #262 on: December 18, 2017, 01:59:12 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9666
  • Tommy Points: 325
If the NFL is wondering why the ratings are going down, then they should watch the end of yesterday's Pats/Steelers game. Nobody knows what the rules are anymore. BTW, there is also the rule that the video evidence on the instant replay has to be indisputable to overturn the call on the field. Yes the ball moved, but his fingers on his right hand were under the ball the whole time.

If the ground can't cause a fumble, then how can it prevent a catch? I think the NFL needs to pick a side that is consistent regardless of the type of play.

BTW, the only reason why people are talking about this play, is because of the controversy surrounding it and common sense saying that it was a catch. If the refs called it a touchdown after the replay, then no one would have been questioning the catch today, because of how obvious it was.

My understanding is that they changed the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule to "receiver must maintain control through the fall."
"The ground cannot cause a fumble" is in fact not a rule. It's a convenient shortcut for the fact that if you're tackled and lose the ball when it hits the ground, you're down by contact in the second the ball touches the ground. The ground can, in fact, cause a fumble, if you fall without contact and lose the ball. It's not rocket science, but memespeak is dangerous like that.

Still has nothing to do with the situation, though. The rule is clear cut in that you can't use the ground to maintain control of the ball while making a catch, and that's exactly what happened here.

Not really.  He made the catch, but the NFL has a silly rule that you have to maintain control of . a catch all the way through hitting the ground.  It's a silly rule that has always caused head scratching decisions.  Had that play happened in the middle of the field and instead of him lunging for the end zone, for example, somebody popped the ball loose (because they dove low or it hit their foot, etc..) it would've been ruled a catch and a fumble.  He CLEARLY had possession.  He just reached out to put it over the goal line.   Or, had it been a running play and he reached across the end zone it would have been a TD before any lost possession.  But, the NFL has this silly rule that on a catch where you hit the ground, you need to maintain possession all the way through the play.  So, by the letter of the law it was the correct play.  Just another bad rule that benefitted the Patriots.
Oh wow. I guess I get that. If I were a Pittsburg fan I'd probably respond that the play then ends when he breaks the plane.

It just sorta seems there are multiple ways to justify a catch and only one way to justify it's not a catch and that's what they used.

It's pretty counter intuitive.

"So you're saying he made the catch and crossed the plane so it's a catch?" Nope. We're saying no catch.

"So you're saying he made the catch and he fumbled and recovered it?" Nope. We're saying no catch.

"So you're saying he made a catch and nobody touched him, but then he failed to make a football move so he's still in the process of making...."  Nope. We're saying no catch.

He caught the ball as he was going to the ground, so the only way he can establish possession in that scenario is by hanging onto the ball all the way through "the catch process," which includes surviving contact with the ground. His "possession" of the ball didn't survive contact with the ground, as replay clearly shows him bobbling the ball when the ball hits the ground.

It is true that the ground cannot cause a fumble, but in this case the ground didn't cause a fumble; you have to have possession in order to fumble, and he never established possession, because he didn't complete "the catch process." If he'd survived his landing—that is, if he had come down with the ball, and not let the ball touch the ground—then he would've established possession, and if he'd then broken the plane, it would've been a touchdown. But he broke the plane before he'd established possession (and, as it turns out, he never established possession, because once the ball touched the ground, it was an incomplete pass).

Earlier I referenced Edelman's catch in last year's Super Bowl; that was a catch because Edelman had his hands under the ball, so even though Edelman's hands touched the ground, the ball never touched the ground. That needed to happen for James's play to be a catch, but it didn't.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #263 on: December 18, 2017, 02:06:28 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Right but his knee hit the ground. His knee hitting the ground is contact with the ground. At that point he still had possession.

It seems maybe the league is saying even though his knee hit the ground he didn't have the ball long enough to establish himself as a runner. So now he needs to have it the whole way through. And he didn't so it was never a catch.

Seems hair splitting at best.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #264 on: December 18, 2017, 02:39:19 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Right but his knee hit the ground. His knee hitting the ground is contact with the ground. At that point he still had possession.

It seems maybe the league is saying even though his knee hit the ground he didn't have the ball long enough to establish himself as a runner. So now he needs to have it the whole way through. And he didn't so it was never a catch.

Seems hair splitting at best.
Tbe whole body and especially the hands and ball have to survive the fall to the ground. His knee hit first but the rest of his body was still ralling. When th e final part of his body, his arms and hands carrying the football hit, he didn't maintain possession of the ball and the ball touched the ground. End story. The rule says specifically the the reception must be completed by the letter of the rule before a touchdown can be considered.

Tne s ame thing happened to the Gronk very early in the season. Brady threw him a ball very low and slightly over the goalline. Gronk was falling and when he hit the ground the ball moved so no TD. Its the rule and it pretty fonsistent and has worked for us and against us.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #265 on: December 18, 2017, 02:47:57 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
This is the rule

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.


To me the initial contact with the ground is the knee and he had control when that happened.

So to me either they're saying not enough time to become a runner so he has to have it all the way to the ground or he didn't have control or both.

I'd have to rewatch this a bunch of times in real speed.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #266 on: December 18, 2017, 02:52:25 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
To me in one replay it definitely doesn't look like he had it long enough to be a runner and has to have it all the way down and didn't. It reminds me of I think the Buffalo Bill that had the ball in the end zone for a nanosecond until I think Butler popped it out and they said that wasn't long enough to establish a catch.

On a different replay I wasn't as sure.

But I'm not a ref

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #267 on: December 18, 2017, 03:00:56 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
To me in one replay it definitely doesn't look like he had it long enough to be a runner and has to have it all the way down and didn't. It reminds me of I think the Buffalo Bill that had the ball in the end zone for a nanosecond until I think Butler popped it out and they said that wasn't long enough to establish a catch.

On a different replay I wasn't as sure.

But I'm not a ref
The NFL has a full breakdown on what it means to "establish oneself as a runner".

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #268 on: December 18, 2017, 03:01:57 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5368
  • Tommy Points: 2478
If he's not down by contact because nobody has touched him and he starts to move wouldn't it then be a fumble and recovery?

The knee is the impact with the ground. Not his hands. Right?

The process of James making the catch occurred while he was going to the ground so the knee doesn't matter in this case. If he had made the catch and then took a knee (like so many kick-off returners do), that would be different since he would have demonstrated control of the ball before choosing to be down on his own volition.

TP, I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand, we've seen this rule enforced many times the last few years, they took a TD in the endzone away from Gronk a couple years back due to something similar.

The rule is pretty clear and is designed to prevent ambiguity. When I saw the replay I knew instantly the play would be overturned, this really shouldn't be controversial at all. If you lose control of the ball going to the ground immediately after a catch, it is going to be incomplete every time. If you lose control, you lose the completion. It's simple black and white, the goal line doesn't matter, the knee doesn't matter. There's a protocol for making a catch just like there's a protocol for lining up and snapping an offensive play. If you don't follow this protocol there will be consequences. Dumb play by the receiver.

Re: Patriots 2017 season
« Reply #269 on: December 18, 2017, 03:14:11 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
To me in one replay it definitely doesn't look like he had it long enough to be a runner and has to have it all the way down and didn't. It reminds me of I think the Buffalo Bill that had the ball in the end zone for a nanosecond until I think Butler popped it out and they said that wasn't long enough to establish a catch.

On a different replay I wasn't as sure.

But I'm not a ref
The NFL has a full breakdown on what it means to "establish oneself as a runner".

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/
So he didn't maintain control long enough to be a runner because it all happened in less than half a second. Makes sense I suppose.

That video is good and clear with some of the bolded stuff.

You can tell the rule has been written by a committee.