ImageImageImageImage

OT: Patriots

Moderators: sully00, Parliament10

Wes-J
Veteran
Posts: 2,525
And1: 2,035
Joined: Feb 19, 2012
 

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#61 » by Wes-J » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:34 pm

Smitty731 wrote:
Wes-J wrote:
Smitty731 wrote:
C'mon man. I even finished the post with saying I'm not defending Gronk.

For Smith-Schuster, being immature is no excuse. He was fined and suspended for an illegal hit and then taunting a player while standing over him. In the same game where his own teammate might have had his career ended. And yet he re-enacted the very thing that got him fined and suspended. Yesterday Thomas Davis laid out Davante Adams in a similar way. Davis went to the bench and buried his head in his hands and looked like he was ready to walk off the field. Smith-Schuster chose to glorify what he did by incorporating it into a celebration.

I don't care how young you are, you have to know that isn't ok. I'm sure he'll be hearing from the league again. And it is a shame, because he's obviously a special talent as a player.


Well i wouldn't agree with the pot meet kettle. Shuster is a good kid actually, very mature, knows he did wrong. Don't be quick to judge him just yet, he still has time to grow up and I'm confident he'll learn from his mistake. He's very physical and was trying to stick up for his teammate but he went overboard and he knows it. At least he's got some dog in him.

Gronk is just a completely different animal. What he's been about on and off the field doesn't even compare. His vicious shot that landed him a suspension wasn't even within the context of the game, it was cowardly. He's made a lifetime of knucklehead decisions so whatever man, just think it's not fair to put the young man in the same discussion with this piece of work known as the Gronk.


I'd be curious to see what you think the lifetime of knucklehead decisions are. He's one of the most active NFL players in terms of community involvement. He's never spent a dime of his NFL salary and has it all tied up in reportedly smart and safe investments. He's never been in trouble off the field. Sure, he parties. So does 90% of every professional sports league. But he's never crossed the line with it and gotten in trouble.

He may act like an overgrown child on the field with the way he celebrates, but who cares? If you don't like to see him celebrate, stop him.

As I said, there is no excuse for what he did in the Buffalo game. It was disgusting and he was penalized accordingly. But if we're going to let others off the hook for one bad action, he should be handled the same way.


I've got no issue with his celebrations.

Going nowhere with this. Go ahead buddy, be the ambassador for the Gronkster. He's a great player. Great game. Maybe we'll see you guys the in the playoffs although I probably wouldn't want that misery again.
Smitty731
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 21,151
And1: 23,592
Joined: Feb 09, 2014
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#62 » by Smitty731 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:40 pm

Wes-J wrote:
Smitty731 wrote:
Wes-J wrote:
Well i wouldn't agree with the pot meet kettle. Shuster is a good kid actually, very mature, knows he did wrong. Don't be quick to judge him just yet, he still has time to grow up and I'm confident he'll learn from his mistake. He's very physical and was trying to stick up for his teammate but he went overboard and he knows it. At least he's got some dog in him.

Gronk is just a completely different animal. What he's been about on and off the field doesn't even compare. His vicious shot that landed him a suspension wasn't even within the context of the game, it was cowardly. He's made a lifetime of knucklehead decisions so whatever man, just think it's not fair to put the young man in the same discussion with this piece of work known as the Gronk.


I'd be curious to see what you think the lifetime of knucklehead decisions are. He's one of the most active NFL players in terms of community involvement. He's never spent a dime of his NFL salary and has it all tied up in reportedly smart and safe investments. He's never been in trouble off the field. Sure, he parties. So does 90% of every professional sports league. But he's never crossed the line with it and gotten in trouble.

He may act like an overgrown child on the field with the way he celebrates, but who cares? If you don't like to see him celebrate, stop him.

As I said, there is no excuse for what he did in the Buffalo game. It was disgusting and he was penalized accordingly. But if we're going to let others off the hook for one bad action, he should be handled the same way.


I've got no issue with his celebrations.

Going nowhere with this. Go ahead buddy, be the ambassador for the Gronkster. He's a great player. Great game. Maybe we'll see you guys the in the playoffs although I probably wouldn't want that misery again.


This is the response you get from people when you have no facts to back up a comment you made. I see it every single day on Twitter. Generally something Celtics related like: "Boston sucks." "Why do they suck?" "I could tell you all day long why!" and no actual facts.

You said he's made a lifetime of knucklehead decisions and yet provide no context to explain that and instead choose to bow out. I don't get throwing out a statement like that and then not trying to back it up.
UNCBlue012
Veteran
Posts: 2,649
And1: 2,846
Joined: Jun 21, 2017
   

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#63 » by UNCBlue012 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:44 pm

Screw the Pats. lol The Steelers got so screwed last night.

Hell of a game against two of the league's best, but dammit that hurt.

That being said: DOUBLE GRONK, CONVERT THE FIRST DOWN WHEN YOU'RE UP 8 WITH 3 MINUTES TO GO AND CATCH THE PICK ON THE PATRIOTS FINAL DRIVE.

Ok, I'm mad but done.
“Suck my d**k.” - Kyrie Irving
User avatar
Tai
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,863
And1: 2,520
Joined: Dec 03, 2009
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#64 » by Tai » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:49 pm

Wes-J wrote:
Tai wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He became a runner when he reached for the goal line. At that point he’s no different than an rb. He had established himself in the field of play. Ridiculous


How does reaching out make you a runner? On top of that, he caught the ball in mid-air. He never was actually on his feet.

Look, I agree it's a rule that needs tweaking, but as it is, saying he became a runner in any way....what? How?


Ain't nobody cryin buddy but I think it's definitely a discussion worthy topic. This is not a clear cut thing that this biased forum is making it out to be.


I don't see how you become a runner without actually being on your feet. That's the one thing that made the Dez Bryant play in the 2014-2015 playoffs a very tough call; Dez was initially on his feet and fell down. Jesse James for the Steelers can't make that case.

The thing going against Dez tho was that he never really crossed the goal line, so either it's a incompletion, or possibly a fumble and a touchback.

NOW, I said the rule should be tweaked; would I be ok with that being a TD because James extends the ball over the line with apparent control, even though he loses it in the ground after? Yes. But that's not the rule right now; there isn't a different interpretation for that rule at the TD line. That's the one thing I can see the competition committee looking at, and I'd agree with it.
smartyz456 wrote:oh i am a laker fan for life

i'm just gonna be a warrior fan until lebron leaves the lakers

true laker fans don't root for lebron


viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1728641
exculpatory
General Manager
Posts: 8,921
And1: 3,413
Joined: Nov 10, 2008

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#65 » by exculpatory » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:50 pm

Steelers got hosed.
Brady is otherworldly.

G-d bless the people who just got mangled on the Amtrak in Washington state.
SamIam 2010: Truth's ability to play so incredibly efficiently is so UNDERAPPRECIATED. Bballcool 2012: Amazing how great Pierce has been for so long. Continues to defy age! KG 2013: P is original Celtic. Wherever he goes, we go. This is The Truth's house.
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 23,846
And1: 21,519
Joined: Dec 09, 2015
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#66 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:03 pm

Smitty731 wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He became a runner when he reached for the goal line. At that point he’s no different than an rb. He had established himself in the field of play. Ridiculous


While I agree with you that the rule is silly, it is different. They enforce it pretty consistently when you go over it over the years. Multiple shows talked about this. If you go to the ground as a receiver, at any point, you have to keep control of the ball.

Now, you can argue the rule, or interpretation, should be changed. That is perfectly fair and probably should be. But I get why it was overturned. Silly or not.

That’s exactly what I’m arguing, the rule was interpreted incorrectly. He had already caught the ball and secured possession before he lunged for the end zone. The act of the catch was done and over with. Just a bad botch
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 23,846
And1: 21,519
Joined: Dec 09, 2015
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#67 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:04 pm

Tai wrote:
Wes-J wrote:
Tai wrote:
How does reaching out make you a runner? On top of that, he caught the ball in mid-air. He never was actually on his feet.

Look, I agree it's a rule that needs tweaking, but as it is, saying he became a runner in any way....what? How?


Ain't nobody cryin buddy but I think it's definitely a discussion worthy topic. This is not a clear cut thing that this biased forum is making it out to be.


I don't see how you become a runner without actually being on your feet. That's the one thing that made the Dez Bryant play in the 2014-2015 playoffs a very tough call; Dez was initially on his feet and fell down. Jesse James for the Steelers can't make that case.

The thing going against Dez tho was that he never really crossed the goal line, so either it's a incompletion, or possibly a fumble and a touchback.

NOW, I said the rule should be tweaked; would I be ok with that being a TD because James extends the ball over the line with apparent control, even though he loses it in the ground after? Yes. But that's not the rule right now; there isn't a different interpretation for that rule at the TD line. That's the one thing I can see the competition committee looking at, and I'd agree with it.

Because one knee = two feet. He turned and lunged after already having completed the catch
Captain_Caveman
RealGM
Posts: 18,049
And1: 21,111
Joined: Jun 25, 2007

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#68 » by Captain_Caveman » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:05 pm

Wes-J wrote:He caught the ball, both feet down, turned upfield and extended the ball, breaks the plane. That’s a football move, so at what point does it become a fumble? Is it just because he was diving as he caught it? Also, there is no angle that showed the ball touch the ground, just that it moved. James hand is underneath it as far as we can see.

I get what you're saying. IMO, they're wrong.

I can live with the Rodgers non-call, it's close, it's a bang bang play, but those usually don't get called in that spot.


It's because he was diving when he caught it. And because the ball is then touching the ground without control after he landed.

You are mad at the rule, not the call.

I would be, too!
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 23,846
And1: 21,519
Joined: Dec 09, 2015
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#69 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:05 pm

Tai wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He became a runner when he reached for the goal line. At that point he’s no different than an rb. He had established himself in the field of play. Ridiculous


How does reaching out make you a runner? On top of that, he caught the ball in mid-air. He never was actually on his feet.

Look, I agree it's a rule that needs tweaking, but as it is, saying he became a runner in any way....what? How?

In NFL terms, how do you become a runner then?
Captain_Caveman
RealGM
Posts: 18,049
And1: 21,111
Joined: Jun 25, 2007

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#70 » by Captain_Caveman » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:06 pm

Homerclease wrote:
Tai wrote:
Wes-J wrote:
Ain't nobody cryin buddy but I think it's definitely a discussion worthy topic. This is not a clear cut thing that this biased forum is making it out to be.


I don't see how you become a runner without actually being on your feet. That's the one thing that made the Dez Bryant play in the 2014-2015 playoffs a very tough call; Dez was initially on his feet and fell down. Jesse James for the Steelers can't make that case.

The thing going against Dez tho was that he never really crossed the goal line, so either it's a incompletion, or possibly a fumble and a touchback.

NOW, I said the rule should be tweaked; would I be ok with that being a TD because James extends the ball over the line with apparent control, even though he loses it in the ground after? Yes. But that's not the rule right now; there isn't a different interpretation for that rule at the TD line. That's the one thing I can see the competition committee looking at, and I'd agree with it.

Because one knee = two feet. He turned and lunged after already having completed the catch


Not the rule. Because he was going to the ground, he must survive the ground. He did not.
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 23,846
And1: 21,519
Joined: Dec 09, 2015
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#71 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:06 pm

Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:
Tai wrote:
I don't see how you become a runner without actually being on your feet. That's the one thing that made the Dez Bryant play in the 2014-2015 playoffs a very tough call; Dez was initially on his feet and fell down. Jesse James for the Steelers can't make that case.

The thing going against Dez tho was that he never really crossed the goal line, so either it's a incompletion, or possibly a fumble and a touchback.

NOW, I said the rule should be tweaked; would I be ok with that being a TD because James extends the ball over the line with apparent control, even though he loses it in the ground after? Yes. But that's not the rule right now; there isn't a different interpretation for that rule at the TD line. That's the one thing I can see the competition committee looking at, and I'd agree with it.

Because one knee = two feet. He turned and lunged after already having completed the catch


Not the rule. Because he was going to the ground, he must survive the ground. He did not.

He wasn’t going to the ground. The act of the catch was already complete. He was trying to score
Wes-J
Veteran
Posts: 2,525
And1: 2,035
Joined: Feb 19, 2012
 

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#72 » by Wes-J » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:07 pm

Smitty731 wrote:
Wes-J wrote:
Smitty731 wrote:
I'd be curious to see what you think the lifetime of knucklehead decisions are. He's one of the most active NFL players in terms of community involvement. He's never spent a dime of his NFL salary and has it all tied up in reportedly smart and safe investments. He's never been in trouble off the field. Sure, he parties. So does 90% of every professional sports league. But he's never crossed the line with it and gotten in trouble.

He may act like an overgrown child on the field with the way he celebrates, but who cares? If you don't like to see him celebrate, stop him.

As I said, there is no excuse for what he did in the Buffalo game. It was disgusting and he was penalized accordingly. But if we're going to let others off the hook for one bad action, he should be handled the same way.


I've got no issue with his celebrations.

Going nowhere with this. Go ahead buddy, be the ambassador for the Gronkster. He's a great player. Great game. Maybe we'll see you guys the in the playoffs although I probably wouldn't want that misery again.


This is the response you get from people when you have no facts to back up a comment you made. I see it every single day on Twitter. Generally something Celtics related like: "Boston sucks." "Why do they suck?" "I could tell you all day long why!" and no actual facts.

You said he's made a lifetime of knucklehead decisions and yet provide no context to explain that and instead choose to bow out. I don't get throwing out a statement like that and then not trying to back it up.


Called him a PUNK, an overgrown child, and the best you can do for a comeback is 20yr old JuJu Smith Shuster, who blasted a renowned cheapshot artist in Vontez Burfict within the context of the game?

This is going overboard, I didn't call him a criminal. Stop it.
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 23,846
And1: 21,519
Joined: Dec 09, 2015
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#73 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:08 pm

Cornbread wrote:
Tai wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He became a runner when he reached for the goal line. At that point he’s no different than an rb. He had established himself in the field of play. Ridiculous


How does reaching out make you a runner? On top of that, he caught the ball in mid-air. He never was actually on his feet.

Look, I agree it's a rule that needs tweaking, but as it is, saying he became a runner in any way....what? How?


It doesn’t. Homerclease is just bitter. The rule literally says that you have to be upright to become a runner, which he clearly wasn’t.

Not bitter at all, just think it was a horrible call
User avatar
Tai
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,863
And1: 2,520
Joined: Dec 03, 2009
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#74 » by Tai » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:25 pm

Homerclease wrote:
Tai wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He became a runner when he reached for the goal line. At that point he’s no different than an rb. He had established himself in the field of play. Ridiculous


How does reaching out make you a runner? On top of that, he caught the ball in mid-air. He never was actually on his feet.

Look, I agree it's a rule that needs tweaking, but as it is, saying he became a runner in any way....what? How?

In NFL terms, how do you become a runner then?


You catch the ball while running? That at least requires being on your feet.

Homerclease wrote:He wasn’t going to the ground. The act of the catch was already complete. He was trying to score


James caught the ball in mid-air, and landed initially on his knee, not his feet, before ultimately laying on his side. What part of that is not "going to the ground"? Maybe if he had landed on his feet first you'd have a point. Because he was always going to the ground, there's no way the act was already complete. Again, it'd be one thing if you'd argue the rule should actually be he crossed the goalline and thus the play automatically ends, but that's not the rule right now.
smartyz456 wrote:oh i am a laker fan for life

i'm just gonna be a warrior fan until lebron leaves the lakers

true laker fans don't root for lebron


viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1728641
ViperGTS
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,385
And1: 4,397
Joined: Jul 04, 2016

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#75 » by ViperGTS » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:32 pm

I’m not even mad at the rule anymore. Troy Brown on the postgame show even said players know the rule. You run the risk of that happening every time you do it. Look at Dak last night. Trying to be a hero a fumbling out of the end zone. Game over.
User avatar
Tai
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,863
And1: 2,520
Joined: Dec 03, 2009
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#76 » by Tai » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:33 pm

ViperGTS wrote:I’m not even mad at the rule anymore. Troy Brown on the postgame show even said players know the rule. You run the risk of that happening every time you do it. Look at Dak last night. Trying to be a hero a fumbling out of the end zone. Game over.


You mean Derek Carr right? :lol:
smartyz456 wrote:oh i am a laker fan for life

i'm just gonna be a warrior fan until lebron leaves the lakers

true laker fans don't root for lebron


viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1728641
ViperGTS
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,385
And1: 4,397
Joined: Jul 04, 2016

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#77 » by ViperGTS » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:40 pm

Tai wrote:
ViperGTS wrote:I’m not even mad at the rule anymore. Troy Brown on the postgame show even said players know the rule. You run the risk of that happening every time you do it. Look at Dak last night. Trying to be a hero a fumbling out of the end zone. Game over.


You mean Derek Carr right? :lol:



Damn your right. Lol. It was a long day and night so it was a blur for me.
Captain_Caveman
RealGM
Posts: 18,049
And1: 21,111
Joined: Jun 25, 2007

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#78 » by Captain_Caveman » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:41 pm

Wes-J wrote:
Tai wrote:
Homerclease wrote:He became a runner when he reached for the goal line. At that point he’s no different than an rb. He had established himself in the field of play. Ridiculous


How does reaching out make you a runner? On top of that, he caught the ball in mid-air. He never was actually on his feet.

Look, I agree it's a rule that needs tweaking, but as it is, saying he became a runner in any way....what? How?


Ain't nobody cryin buddy but I think it's definitely a discussion worthy topic. This is not a clear cut thing that this biased forum is making it out to be.


According to the rule, it is 100% clear cut.
Captain_Caveman
RealGM
Posts: 18,049
And1: 21,111
Joined: Jun 25, 2007

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#79 » by Captain_Caveman » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:47 pm

Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:Because one knee = two feet. He turned and lunged after already having completed the catch


Not the rule. Because he was going to the ground, he must survive the ground. He did not.

He wasn’t going to the ground. The act of the catch was already complete. He was trying to score


Read on Twitter


This isn't even debatable. He is 100% going to the ground during the catch and 100% loses "control" of the ball once he does, with the ball 100% touching the ground when that happens. Completely irrefutable in every possible way.

If you want to be mad at the rule, go for it. But you are creating your own rules on this one.
Homerclease
RealGM
Posts: 23,846
And1: 21,519
Joined: Dec 09, 2015
       

Re: OT: Patriots 

Post#80 » by Homerclease » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:03 pm

Captain_Caveman wrote:
Homerclease wrote:
Captain_Caveman wrote:
Not the rule. Because he was going to the ground, he must survive the ground. He did not.

He wasn’t going to the ground. The act of the catch was already complete. He was trying to score


Read on Twitter


This isn't even debatable. He is 100% going to the ground during the catch and 100% loses "control" of the ball once he does, with the ball 100% touching the ground when that happens. Completely irrefutable in every possible way.

If you want to be mad at the rule, go for it. But you are creating your own rules on this one.

Except they made the same exact opposite call in the Giants vs Seahawks game week 7. IMO he’s a runner when the ball crosses the plane in this situation, rule doesn’t apply here

Return to New England Patriots