Lions D-Line
Moderator: Texas Chuck
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Senior
- Posts: 555
- And1: 37
- Joined: Oct 30, 2014
Re: Lions D-Line
Letter of the Law it WAS pass interference. You can't deny that. If you want to say the contact wasn't that bad, OK, that's a judgment call...but if he turned and looked for the ball we wouldn't even be discussing it. Yes, there was a face mask prior too.
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 802
- And1: 12
- Joined: Oct 20, 2014
-
Re: Lions D-Line
This call will be talked about 4ever. If Stafford makes a better throw or if Pettigrew stops then Hitchens runs all over him.
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 169
- And1: 6
- Joined: Oct 22, 2014
-
Re: Lions D-Line
In my eyes ..the first thing that happened was the refs missing a face mask penalty against the lions.
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Ballboy
- Posts: 48
- And1: 7
- Joined: Oct 24, 2014
-
Re: Lions D-Line
Jarntt wrote:Letter of the Law it WAS pass interference. You can't deny that. If you want to say the contact wasn't that bad, OK, that's a judgment call...but if he turned and looked for the ball we wouldn't even be discussing it. Yes, there was a face mask prior too.
You're right, Jarnnt. Letter of the Law would mean PI. But, if we are going to go by Letter of the Law then at the very least there should have been two flags on receiver - one for offensive PI and one for facemask or hands to the face, take your pick.
The NFL officials can't go by Letter of the Law because a flag would be thrown on most plays and the game would be very dull.
The refs did the right thing by picking up the flag.
At any rate, I'm happy as a lark at the outcome of this game. As I said a week or so ago, I think Dallas matches up better with GB than it does with Detroit. I'm not saying we are going to win on Sunday, there are too many X factors. I do, however, think we will be able to run the ball much more effectively and control the clock.
That said, our D played with much passion yesterday and it was the D's effort that kept us in the game until the offense got on track. I'm liking what I'm seeing. Rodgers might pick them apart on Sunday, but then again they might just surprise us again.
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 802
- And1: 12
- Joined: Oct 20, 2014
-
Re: Lions D-Line
After rewatching it, we definitely didn't play our A game, maybe not even a B game. Offensively it was just a rough game for the most part. We were constantly behind the chains whether it be from a sack or a penalty. Credit Det for a lot of it, but I'm not sure if Romo was off early or the pressure of the rush just had that much effect. He was hit 8 times the first quarter. MUrray seemed hampered with his hand as well, not to mention he looks out of gas on some plays. Then again that could just be the result of SUh and company beating our OLine. Not sure where Dez was yesterday. Romo hinted last week that some things have been tweaked the last part of the yr. obviously one thing is getting the ball to 82 more. He is playing well. Defensively, the running into the K was huge as was the missed tackle by PAtmon on Stafford, but other than that they played pretty well. I didn't notice Moore much yesterday. Glad to see 37 making plays on teams yesterday. He has shown up some lately. One thing is for certain, they have to play much better next week
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Senior
- Posts: 555
- And1: 37
- Joined: Oct 30, 2014
Re: Lions D-Line
Eiknarflin wrote:Jarntt wrote:Letter of the Law it WAS pass interference. You can't deny that. If you want to say the contact wasn't that bad, OK, that's a judgment call...but if he turned and looked for the ball we wouldn't even be discussing it. Yes, there was a face mask prior too.
[b]You're right, Jarnnt. Letter of the Law would mean PI. But, if we are going to go by Letter of the Law then at the very least there should have been two flags on receiver - one for offensive PI and one for facemask or hands to the face, take your pick.The NFL officials can't go by Letter of the Law because a flag would be thrown on most plays and the game would be very dull. [/b]
The refs did the right thing by picking up the flag.
At any rate, I'm happy as a lark at the outcome of this game. As I said a week or so ago, I think Dallas matches up better with GB than it does with Detroit. I'm not saying we are going to win on Sunday, there are too many X factors. I do, however, think we will be able to run the ball much more effectively and control the clock.
That said, our D played with much passion yesterday and it was the D's effort that kept us in the game until the offense got on track. I'm liking what I'm seeing. Rodgers might pick them apart on Sunday, but then again they might just surprise us again.
While I don't disagree in total, the refs didn't see the facemask. If he turned and looked for the ball and STILL bumped him it would technically be PI (remember face guarding is not illegal in and of itself), but would be a ticky tack call and likely let go as incidental contact. The reason it should have been called was because he never turned around and we all know that you never, NEVER get the benefit of the doubt when you don't even turn to look at the ball. Every play has penalties that could have been called, but some are more egregious than others
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Senior
- Posts: 555
- And1: 37
- Joined: Oct 30, 2014
Re: Lions D-Line
Romotodez wrote:After rewatching it, we definitely didn't play our A game, maybe not even a B game. Offensively it was just a rough game for the most part. We were constantly behind the chains whether it be from a sack or a penalty. Credit Det for a lot of it, but I'm not sure if Romo was off early or the pressure of the rush just had that much effect. He was hit 8 times the first quarter. MUrray seemed hampered with his hand as well, not to mention he looks out of gas on some plays. Then again that could just be the result of SUh and company beating our OLine. Not sure where Dez was yesterday. Romo hinted last week that some things have been tweaked the last part of the yr. obviously one thing is getting the ball to 82 more. He is playing well. Defensively, the running into the K was huge as was the missed tackle by PAtmon on Stafford, but other than that they played pretty well. I didn't notice Moore much yesterday. Glad to see 37 making plays on teams yesterday. He has shown up some lately. One thing is for certain, they have to play much better next week
One thing I noticed was that Carr played pretty well. He was on Calvin a lot. Scandrick played very well.
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,750
- And1: 4,478
- Joined: Oct 18, 2014
- Location: Maine
-
Re: Lions D-Line
Jarntt wrote:Romotodez wrote:After rewatching it, we definitely didn't play our A game, maybe not even a B game. Offensively it was just a rough game for the most part. We were constantly behind the chains whether it be from a sack or a penalty. Credit Det for a lot of it, but I'm not sure if Romo was off early or the pressure of the rush just had that much effect. He was hit 8 times the first quarter. MUrray seemed hampered with his hand as well, not to mention he looks out of gas on some plays. Then again that could just be the result of SUh and company beating our OLine. Not sure where Dez was yesterday. Romo hinted last week that some things have been tweaked the last part of the yr. obviously one thing is getting the ball to 82 more. He is playing well. Defensively, the running into the K was huge as was the missed tackle by PAtmon on Stafford, but other than that they played pretty well. I didn't notice Moore much yesterday. Glad to see 37 making plays on teams yesterday. He has shown up some lately. One thing is for certain, they have to play much better next week
One thing I noticed was that Carr played pretty well. He was on Calvin a lot. Scandrick played very well.
Considering all things, I thought the defense played pretty well in this game. The Detroit defense played extremely well and we had to earn every tough yard we got. This was a playoff caliber character type win for us IMO.
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 50
- And1: 6
- Joined: Jan 29, 2009
-
Re: Lions D-Line
Jarntt wrote:Letter of the Law it WAS pass interference. You can't deny that. If you want to say the contact wasn't that bad, OK, that's a judgment call...but if he turned and looked for the ball we wouldn't even be discussing it. Yes, there was a face mask prior too.
It's not PI. He doesn't have to look for the ball if he is face guarding and he did not impede the receiver in any way from catching the football. The only thing Hitchens is guilty of is holding, which was prior to the pass.
I miss Sean Lee
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 802
- And1: 12
- Joined: Oct 20, 2014
-
Re: Lions D-Line
Jarntt wrote:Romotodez wrote:After rewatching it, we definitely didn't play our A game, maybe not even a B game. Offensively it was just a rough game for the most part. We were constantly behind the chains whether it be from a sack or a penalty. Credit Det for a lot of it, but I'm not sure if Romo was off early or the pressure of the rush just had that much effect. He was hit 8 times the first quarter. MUrray seemed hampered with his hand as well, not to mention he looks out of gas on some plays. Then again that could just be the result of SUh and company beating our OLine. Not sure where Dez was yesterday. Romo hinted last week that some things have been tweaked the last part of the yr. obviously one thing is getting the ball to 82 more. He is playing well. Defensively, the running into the K was huge as was the missed tackle by PAtmon on Stafford, but other than that they played pretty well. I didn't notice Moore much yesterday. Glad to see 37 making plays on teams yesterday. He has shown up some lately. One thing is for certain, they have to play much better next week
One thing I noticed was that Carr played pretty well. He was on Calvin a lot. Scandrick played very well.
Carr has played really well lately.
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Senior
- Posts: 555
- And1: 37
- Joined: Oct 30, 2014
Re: Lions D-Line
Earl Stevens wrote:Jarntt wrote:Letter of the Law it WAS pass interference. You can't deny that. If you want to say the contact wasn't that bad, OK, that's a judgment call...but if he turned and looked for the ball we wouldn't even be discussing it. Yes, there was a face mask prior too.
It's not PI. He doesn't have to look for the ball if he is face guarding and he did not impede the receiver in any way from catching the football. The only thing Hitchens is guilty of is holding, which was prior to the pass.
Face guarding or not doesn't even really matter much on the play. It was pass interference because he hit him before the ball got there. Thus he did impede him from catching the ball.
Re: Lions D-Line
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 802
- And1: 12
- Joined: Oct 20, 2014
-
Re: Lions D-Line
Jarntt wrote:Earl Stevens wrote:Jarntt wrote:Letter of the Law it WAS pass interference. You can't deny that. If you want to say the contact wasn't that bad, OK, that's a judgment call...but if he turned and looked for the ball we wouldn't even be discussing it. Yes, there was a face mask prior too.
It's not PI. He doesn't have to look for the ball if he is face guarding and he did not impede the receiver in any way from catching the football. The only thing Hitchens is guilty of is holding, which was prior to the pass.
Face guarding or not doesn't even really matter much on the play. It was pass interference because he hit him before the ball got there. Thus he did impede him from catching the ball.
And we are gonna hear about this forever especially of we keep winning. I'm not gonna lie, I would be pissed as he'll if I was a Det fan. It was BS what they did. I actually heard today there were actually ?4 penalties on the play- 2 on each team.