NFL 2012 Season - Page 80

On September 28 2012 12:27 Souma wrote:


Okay, look, I'm going to address your argument.



This is a total red herring and I'm having a hard time seeing your point. It does not matter if there is any possible situation where the NFL would be free of complaints or not. If there is something that is worth the complaint, then it deserves the complaint, and some issues are obviously worse and deserve even harsher scrutiny. What's so irrational about that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Please clarify.

And for your Congress example, that seems totally rational to me. Congress as a system/entity and my Congresswoman as an individual are two entirely different things. Are you telling me I'm supposed to love Congress if I love my Congresswoman?

On September 28 2012 13:24 aBstractx wrote:
im trying to sell andre brown high in my fantasy leagues.

andre brown & kenny britt for calvin johnson (his only good player) hes 0-3

andre brown & michael turner for ray rice

both these trades are good for me right?

how about this trade:

andy dalton, andre brown, michael turner for aaron rodgers.

i have ap, jamaal charles, brandon lloyd, steve johnson, fred davis, kenny britt, shaun draugn, ronnie hillman, jacoby jones

this is a 16 team league, and my team is pretty beast. i have one of the best teams in the league so i want to trade my depth for starters. agree or disagree?

the guy who has rodgers has tashard choice, joquie bell, vincent jackson, kevin ogletree, jeremy maclin, antonio gates. his team is awful and needs starting players

On September 28 2012 14:18 Irave wrote:
First-year eligible nominees for Hall of Fame
Quarterback – Steve McNair
Running Back – Priest Holmes
Wide Receiver – Keenan McCardell
Offensive Linemen – Larry Allen (G), Tom Nalen (C), Jonathan Ogden (T)
Defensive Linemen – Sam Adams (DT), Warren Sapp (DT), Michael Strahan (DE), Ted Washington (DT/NT), Bryant Young (DE)
Defensive Back – John Lynch (S)
Kicker – Morten Andersen

On September 28 2012 11:09 Supamang wrote:

My point isn't to say Seahawks deserved that TD. They very clearly didn't based on the PI from Tate (which almost NEVER seem to get called in Hail Mary plays anyway, let me add).

My point is that if you watch any of the TD clips at Full Speed just ONCE, pretend you haven't heard all the negative commentary and this is the first time youve seen the clip. What's your call? Its not that obvious, it looks like both grab the ball, which means its a tie which goes to the passing team.

With the hindsight, the hundreds of slow motion viewings, its all of a sudden so obvious and a "travesty", as Probe1 so eloquently puts it. Yet in the heat of the moment you have about half a second to see the catch actually happen. In this situation it really isn't so obvious and in a review you need very strong evidence to overturn the call on the field. It isn't some kind of terribly obvious call that never should have happened. Calls like these happen all the time, but everyone jumped on this one case.

Everyone (even Obama, Clinton, and Paul Ryan) took turns to shit on the Seahawks for the next couple days. Then once the refs and the NFL come to an agreement, suddenly a new exclusive video comes out that makes the call seem less bad. Suddenly a good amount of articles come out saying, "well maybe it wasn't so terrible of a call" and "we gotta move on". I just see this as classic case of the media blowing this whole thing out of proportion to promote their agenda (which isn't a bad one, let me get that straight) and 90% of the country just blinding following along, throwing one city under the bus.

The call wasn't some kind of historically terrible lapse of judgement. The Seahawks players, fans, and coach's reactions were not "dishonorable" or "shameful". These things have happened in the past and teams have taken wins they didn't deserve unapologetically many times over. Its just in this case, we all wanted the refs back and it was a team thats easy to turn into a villain in circumstances easy to aggravate.

How do you guys not see this?

Edit: thinking about this over, I realize that Seahawks have never been a very popular team to begin with so its not like this changes much anyway. If this event means we get the real refs back its all worth it

On September 28 2012 14:05 Jerubaal wrote:


I'm going to try to tie all of my arguments together and then we can hopefully drop this.

The Congress example is relevant because it contrasts people's perception of what is happening versus what is actually (or possibly) happening. That disgruntled voter doesn't understand that it's her support of her congressman (along with the support of all the other individuals) that creates a divided congress, even though the voter claims to be against it. So everyone 'agrees' that Congress sucks even though it's their actions that caused it. And since their 'voice' isn't being 'heard', Congress must be not work. Congress isn't malfunctioning; it's working as intended by representing a divided electorate.

Now how does this relate to the NFL? There's a situation where disputes over a labor contract caused a referee lockout. That is effectually all anyone save a few individuals knew. The reason I asked for you to imagine a scenario in which Goodell was not a villain in this is because that's as equally possible as the scenario in which he's a horrible monster, as far as any of us know. I don't even care if he's actually the villain. I don't care if there's a better percentage that he's the anti-christ. Because all of those scenarios should be equally valid as far as you are concerned.

Because the real story is you're mad. Just like the disgruntled voter who has no idea how politics functions, the NFL fan is upset at the result and comes to the conclusion that if the NFL Commissioner wasn't a two-faced, lying backstabber, this never would have happened. And you can come up with a multitude of rational explanations. You read this and that on ESPN, but this is just the same old same old. Only now that the inhibitions of being a public crybaby have been taken off, you feel justified in airing your grievances. If you have good arguments, shouldn't the discussion become more rational instead of less rational? What's the need to launch into rants about how the NFL/Goodell are ruining the NFL/football/America? Except if it was really just a crazy part that was pushed down when rationality still reigned.

On September 28 2012 15:18 DannyJ wrote:
Wow I can't believe Morten Andersen was still playing in 2007. I thought he retired like 15 years ago.

On September 28 2012 14:05 Jerubaal wrote:


I'm going to try to tie all of my arguments together and then we can hopefully drop this.

The Congress example is relevant because it contrasts people's perception of what is happening versus what is actually (or possibly) happening. That disgruntled voter doesn't understand that it's her support of her congressman (along with the support of all the other individuals) that creates a divided congress, even though the voter claims to be against it. So everyone 'agrees' that Congress sucks even though it's their actions that caused it. And since their 'voice' isn't being 'heard', Congress must be not work. Congress isn't malfunctioning; it's working as intended by representing a divided electorate.

Now how does this relate to the NFL? There's a situation where disputes over a labor contract caused a referee lockout. That is effectually all anyone save a few individuals knew. The reason I asked for you to imagine a scenario in which Goodell was not a villain in this is because that's as equally possible as the scenario in which he's a horrible monster, as far as any of us know. I don't even care if he's actually the villain. I don't care if there's a better percentage that he's the anti-christ. Because all of those scenarios should be equally valid as far as you are concerned.

Because the real story is you're mad. Just like the disgruntled voter who has no idea how politics functions, the NFL fan is upset at the result and comes to the conclusion that if the NFL Commissioner wasn't a two-faced, lying backstabber, this never would have happened. And you can come up with a multitude of rational explanations. You read this and that on ESPN, but this is just the same old same old. Only now that the inhibitions of being a public crybaby have been taken off, you feel justified in airing your grievances. If you have good arguments, shouldn't the discussion become more rational instead of less rational? What's the need to launch into rants about how the NFL/Goodell are ruining the NFL/football/America? Except if it was really just a crazy part that was pushed down when rationality still reigned.

On September 28 2012 13:47 Supamang wrote:

Dude...youre obviously not going to review the pictures or the videos. I went from thinking it was a touchdown when the pass went down, then 2 minutes later to being embarrassed that my Hawks got a win when they clearly got the ball intercepted. Next day, I see all the slow motion videos and pictures and I think their initial field call was plausible. Again, for the last time, watch the video at full speed, pretend youre the refs seeing it for the first time and come up with a decision. No bias allowed. Then look at all the slow motion videos at all the angles. If you still think theres CLEAR and CONCLUSIVE proof to overturn the decision on the field and that Tate didn't have his hands on the ball to say he had some sort of possession, come back and show me.

Some other things..."control" is never defined in the rulebook. It doesn't have to be this magical, arbitrary "50/50 control" for it to be simultaneous possession. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, I'm saying this because I really dont believe youre arguing with complete honesty. I dont believe anyone whos being honest with themselves can say they dont see Tate's hand in there from the start. And look at the "new angle" video I posted. It shows that Jennings did NOT have the ball to his chest like everyone was saying. In fact, it was him ripping it away from Tate immediately as they struggle on the ground

Edit: Bleh none of this even matters anymore, the refs are back and they showed their competence in the Ravens Browns game

On September 28 2012 23:36 Sermokala wrote:


The point I'm making is that I have no idea how you possibly see how tate had ANY shred of posesion at all. his arm is CLEARLY swinging away in the wind while jennings already has the ball in his chest with both arms now wrapped around it. What I'm saying is that another green bay defender was closer to getting possession. You can't show me ANY evidence at all that shows that tate ever had contact with the ball from a first look perspective.

Look its really simple. Jennings had 2 hands on the ball when his feet hit the ground. thats where the play ended. he very clearly was the only one that had 2 hands on the ball when his feet hit the ground. Extending your arm around the guy whos intercepting your ball and considering it a catch is the most moronic thing I've ever heard about football. I have looked at the evidence a lot and I have NO idea what your seeing.



This gif even stops the play when its important. But your being completly obtuse about what a catch is. Your arguing for people to be able to hand a hand around the ball and consider it a catch for them anyway. If you can't wrap your mind about how awful that is I honestly don't know what to say.

On September 28 2012 14:18 Irave wrote:
First-year eligible nominees for Hall of Fame
Quarterback – Steve McNair
Running Back – Priest Holmes
Wide Receiver – Keenan McCardell
Offensive Linemen – Larry Allen (G), Tom Nalen (C), Jonathan Ogden (T)
Defensive Linemen – Sam Adams (DT), Warren Sapp (DT), Michael Strahan (DE), Ted Washington (DT/NT), Bryant Young (DE)
Defensive Back – John Lynch (S)
Kicker – Morten Andersen

On September 28 2012 14:18 Irave wrote:
First-year eligible nominees for Hall of Fame
Quarterback – Steve McNair
Running Back – Priest Holmes
Wide Receiver – Keenan McCardell
Offensive Linemen – Larry Allen (G), Tom Nalen (C), Jonathan Ogden (T)
Defensive Linemen – Sam Adams (DT), Warren Sapp (DT), Michael Strahan (DE), Ted Washington (DT/NT), Bryant Young (DE)
Defensive Back – John Lynch (S)
Kicker – Morten Andersen

On September 29 2012 00:36 Shotcoder wrote:
Actually the replay skips over the important part when Tate wraps his left arm in around the ball, brings his right hand into the ball and land s on the ground first. It merely highlights Jennings jumping higher and Jenning being able to wrestled the ball away after being on the ground. Which he still couldn't fully do 15 seconds after the whistle was blown.

On September 29 2012 06:08 DannyJ wrote:
Agh should I play Colston vs the Packers or DeSean Jackson vs the Giants this week? Colston has been horribly underachieving and/or is injured (only had 30ish snaps last week) and Jackson usually plays well vs the Giants but I dont know if Vick will ever even have time to throw the ball...

On September 29 2012 06:25 y0su wrote:


There are three things that matter... Tate landing is not one of them.
Did the ball touch the ground? No. Therefore it is a catch.
Did one player clearly have possession at the end of the play? No. Therefore we go to the rule about simultaneous receptions...
Who grabbed the ball first? Jennings.

(last post I'll make about this unless someone brings up something relevant)

On September 26 2012 08:21 itkovian wrote:


That Browner hit was stupid, he's pretty lucky he got away with it. Kinda felt like Jennings had to defend himself cause he knew the refs wouldn't. I guess there is a reason why Browner was the most penalized player in the NFL in 2011

On September 28 2012 23:36 Sermokala wrote:


The point I'm making is that I have no idea how you possibly see how tate had ANY shred of posesion at all. his arm is CLEARLY swinging away in the wind while jennings already has the ball in his chest with both arms now wrapped around it. What I'm saying is that another green bay defender was closer to getting possession. You can't show me ANY evidence at all that shows that tate ever had contact with the ball from a first look perspective.

Look its really simple. Jennings had 2 hands on the ball when his feet hit the ground. thats where the play ended. he very clearly was the only one that had 2 hands on the ball when his feet hit the ground. Extending your arm around the guy whos intercepting your ball and considering it a catch is the most moronic thing I've ever heard about football. I have looked at the evidence a lot and I have NO idea what your seeing.



This gif even stops the play when its important. But your being completly obtuse about what a catch is. Your arguing for people to be able to hand a hand around the ball and consider it a catch for them anyway. If you can't wrap your mind about how awful that is I honestly don't know what to say.