Shaw66
-
Posts
9,724 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:
There's not that much difference between the two boards. The BBMB mods would leave you alone as long as you acted like an adult and stuck to football without resorting to profanities. They merge more threads here while at BBMB they just let the bad threads die out.
Well, yes and know. Frankly, I think BBMB had better football discussions in its best threads, and it was much worse than here in its worst threads. There are a lot fewer jerks here. I suspect that's because the owner and mods here have the ability to ban the bad actors and keep them off.
It's nice to have a place to talk with serious fans.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
ESPN and PFF don't agree.
They do agree about Saints Raiders Titans. But you have to wonfer about the quality of ratings when the Bills are at the tip of one list and the bottom of another.
It's all based on amateurs evaluating film. That's a joke.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:
So is this because TT runs arround like crazy, or is the OL actually, you know....good?
https://twitter.com/PFF/status/946474844211818496
can't post the JPEG because it's too big...oh well
This points out the problem with stats generated by people other than the pro football professionals. Pretty obvious to me that your rating on this list is NOT a measure of offensive line play. It's a measure of something that is related to having a mobile quarterback. Taylor, Brees, Carr, Mariota are all on the top of this list.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, westerndecline said:
Me it's conclusive that the Buffalo Bills player is actually pulling them back or is he is his head just going back as a natural response because he's pulling the ball back on his own the very fact that were talking about it means it's inconclusive and stand is called
I don't think his head going back that far is a "natural response." His entired torso had to move, and since he was lying top of other players he didn't have his legs under him to push himself back. And why would he be pushing himself back, anyway. He was pulled back at exactly the right time; split second sooner and his arms don't get out there, split second later and he would have pulled the ball back first, in which case his forward progress would have been behind the line to gain.
Patriots luck.
-
4 minutes ago, cba fan said:
The guy had a finger over the end of the ball. It may have never made the part of the white line that we do not know where on that white line is the actual line to gain as they never spotted and measured.
Fair enough. I'll give you that at least they were supposed to have spotted and measured. But I think it was pretty clear the ball had gotten to the line to gain.
1 minute ago, Idandria said:When he lunged forward, someone should have knocked the ball out of his hands. You are really exposing yourself lunging like that.
Yes, but somebody had to be in position and had to react very quickly. The ball wasn't out there very long.
-
23 hours ago, Shaw66 said:
Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.
Turns out I was wrong about this. In the 4th and 1 thread there's a video from the sideline. It's clear that he reached the ball out to or past the line to gain. It's also clear that just as he got fully extended his helmet starts moving back - it moved back at least a foot. After he started moving back, he bends his elbows, the ball elevates as he's pulling it back to his body.
Since the retreat of the ball was caused by a Bill, he gets his forward progress, which is at or over the line to gain. First down.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, cba fan said:
OK you win.
In my WR EX the WR never escaped the grasp he just pulled back and defender had not yet tackled him. Do you spot it at the 40 or the 37?
the 4th and 1 is inconclusive.
No, unfortunately it isn't inconclusive. At the instant the ball reached the farthest point, you can see his head going backward and then the ball starting to move backward. You also can see a Bill who looks to be pulling him back. The rule is clear - when he's moved backward by the opponent, he gets his forward progress, and his forward progress was at or over the line to gain. First down.
-
5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:
This is wrong. Look at the replay in this thread again. Regardless of the poor view from that side re: the knee being down or not, it's clear as day that his body was being pulled back by defenders after he lunged forward. That is, he didn't retreat on his own. Just as importantly, there is no point in that long portion of the play where he is free of a defender's grasp. The play you described had a player escaping the grasp - hence its lack of relevance to this debate.
Now that I look more carefully, I think you're correct. First, it's clear that his elbows bend and he pulls the ball back. But the instant before his elbows bend you can see his helmet moving backward. So I'd have to say that based on the rule, he gets his forward progress, which was the farthest point he reached with the ball. If the Bills hadn't pulled him back, he wouldn't get his forward progress.
-
23 minutes ago, The Wiz said:
Unless of course, you're playing in New England.
You know, I really don't buy all this NE conspiracy stuff, but I will admit that the evidence keeps piling up.
It's POSSIBLE that the whistle blew or his knee touched or he was pulled back at the EXACT instant that the ball carrier reached full extension of the ball, but I don't see how anyone could know any of that from the replays. I really believe they forgot that breaking the plane doesn't apply in this case.
But I also believe the people reviewing the play also assume the Patriots will make the play they need, so when they saw the ball touch the plane, they immediately thought "there you go, the Patriots did it again!" and forgot to think about what the rule actually is.
-
Here's something I wrote in the thread about the Benjamin catch, because a discussion broke out there about the 4th and 1.
The rules are clear. You don't get forward progress when you're the one who moves the ball backward.
Here's what I wrote there:
Here are some things from the NFL rules:
"A Running Play ends: (a) When the ball is declared dead; (b) When a runner loses or relinquishes possession by a Fumble or a backward pass; or (c) When a player of either team throws an illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage or when there is not a line of scrimmage.
"(d) The Dead Ball Spot: The spot at which the ball became dead."
"FORWARD PROGRESS. The Forward Progress of a runner or airborne receiver is the point at which his advance toward his opponent’s goal ends and is the spot at which the ball is declared dead by rule, irrespective of the runner or receiver being pushed or carried backward by an opponent." (note that this rule could be written more clearly, but we know what it means - the offense gets the benefit of forward progress if the defense pushes the ball carrier back, but the offense DOES NOT get the benefit of forward progress if the offense retreats from the forward progress point. Otherwise every time a ball carrier gave up yards the ball would be declared dead and he couldn't advance it. )
"A Down is a period of action that starts when the ball is put in play (3-2-3) and ends when the ball is declared dead (7-2-1)."
"ARTICLE 1. DEAD BALL DECLARED. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: (a) when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent may continue to advance; or Note: If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down. (b) when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends."
Okay, you have to put all of that together. Fundamentally, the spot of the ball is the place where the ball is where the ball is declared dead. The exception is forward progress, which makes the spot of the ball the farthest forward point to which the ball carrier had moved the ball before the ball carrier is pushed back by the defense. The ball is dead when the runner is down or the ref otherwise declares the ball dead.
On the play in question, the ball carrier clearly thrust the ball forward and then pulled it back - he didn't keep his arms extended. So the ball going backward was not caused by the opponent, the Bills, moving it back. Now, I'd have to see it again - it may be possible that the Bills pushed him back some, but most of the movement of the ball backward was caused by the ball carrier, not the Bills.
So the question becomes where was the ball when the ball carrier's knee or other part of his body (except feet and hands) touch the ground? Or, if they didn't touch, where was the ball when some official stopped the play. If either of those events happened at the exact instant the ball carrier reached the ball forward, then he gets the spot as far as he extended the ball. But if either of those events happened at any other time, he doesn't get the spot based on the reach.
I don't think it was possible in the replay to determine when the knee or some other part of the body was down. I never saw a clear view of that actual touching. So you can't possibly overturn the call on the field by ruling that the knee was down at the exact instant necessary to give the ball carrier the full extension of his reach with the ball. If there isn't conclusive evidence that his knee touched at exactly the right time, you can't overturn the call on the field.
If the play ended because the ref blew the whistle at the absolute exact instant when the ball was at its farthest forward point, then the spot is there. I don't recall a replay where you could hear the whistle, but I'm pretty sure the whistle came AFTER the ball had reached out and pulled back. So the play didn't end with the ball at the farthest forward point, it ended later, after the ball carrier had retreated from the farthest point forward, so the ball has to be spotted where the ball was after he pulled it back.
Breaking the plane is irrelevant here. Breaking the plane applies only at the goal line, because as soon as the ball breaks the plane the play is over. (The ball is dead "when a touchdown, touchback, safety, field goal, or Try has been made." "A touchdown is scored when: (a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play into the end zone.") So the ball is dead when the ball gets to or past the goal line, and the play is over. But in this case the ball isn't dead until the knee is down or the ref says it's dead, and it's almost certain that neither of those things happened at the exact instant when the ball carrier had pushed the ball forward to its farthest point.
Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.
-
1
-
3
-
-
I thought he should go for it, but I'm never against taking the points that are available. Hauschka was a good bet.
A lot of people here ALWAYS want to go for it. They remind me of my son who used to run the fake punt on Madden every fourth down.
There's always a rationale for going for it, but just because you can come up with an argument in favor of going for it doesn't mean that the argument is right.
In this case, however, I think the odds suggest that the Bills should have gone for it. I think you have to figure Hauschka was only a 50-50 proposition. Yeah, he made a lot early in the year, but it's tougher in winter weather. I think you have to figure making it is also 50-50, even though the Bills haven't been too successful on fourth down this year. (I think they haven't been successful on several desperation fourth downs, not the typical fourth and 1 in the middle of the game - remember, the Bills generally didn't go for it on those fourth and 1s.)
So if you're 50-50 either way, the downside of not making it is the same. The upside, however, is why I think you have to go for it. If you make the field goal, you have three. If you make the first down, presumably you're getting closer to the goal line and the chances you get at least 3 start getting better. And of course your chances of getting 7 go up.
But I think it's a closer call than some people think.
-
42 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:
I think it’s a little more complicated than that
Of course it's more complicated. But I'm sure it's a factor. NBA stars get favorable calls - it's almost like the ref is thinking "if it didn't go in, Durant must have been fouled, because he makes them all."
-
6 minutes ago, Xwnyer said:
Its called aTD for Cheats even if the foot didnt dig up some tires the OLD Give it to em
I do have to say this in defense of all the people who make these decisions. There is a clear, and I think natural, bias in favor of the good team over the bad team. There is an assumption in the back of everyone's head that the players on the good teams make the plays and the players on the bad teams don't. So if maybe it's interference, Cooks gets the call and Hyde doesn't.
I think it's a natural, unconscious decision. These are the Bills so that pass to Benjamin must have been incomplete. These are the Patriots, so that 4th down play must have been successful.
It's another reason why the evidence to overturn a call has to be conclusive.
-
35 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:
Not saying anything leads officials to be less careful about botching the next one. Or Kraft a little more cautious about exerting control over the league office maybe.
Either way silence does nothing.
What is the 4th and 1 rule? Lay it out for me.
Here are some things from the NFL rules:
"A Running Play ends: (a) When the ball is declared dead; (b) When a runner loses or relinquishes possession by a Fumble or a backward pass; or (c) When a player of either team throws an illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage or when there is not a line of scrimmage.
"(d) The Dead Ball Spot: The spot at which the ball became dead."
"FORWARD PROGRESS. The Forward Progress of a runner or airborne receiver is the point at which his advance toward his opponent’s goal ends and is the spot at which the ball is declared dead by rule, irrespective of the runner or receiver being pushed or carried backward by an opponent." (note that this rule could be written more clearly, but we know what it means - the offense gets the benefit of forward progress if the defense pushes the ball carrier back, but the offense DOES NOT get the benefit of forward progress if the offense retreats from the forward progress point.)
"A Down is a period of action that starts when the ball is put in play (3-2-3) and ends when the ball is declared dead (7-2-1)."
"ARTICLE 1. DEAD BALL DECLARED. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: (a) when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent may continue to advance; or Note: If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down. (b) when a runner is held or otherwise restrained so that his forward progress ends."
Okay, you have to put all of that together. Fundamentally, the spot of the ball is the place where the ball is where the ball is declared dead. The exception is forward progress, which makes the spot of the ball the farthest forward point to which the ball carrier had moved the ball before the ball carrier is pushed back by the defense. The ball is dead when the runner is down or the ref otherwise declares the ball dead.
On the play in question, the ball carrier clearly thrust the ball forward and then pulled it back - he didn't keep his arms extended. So the ball going backward was not caused by the opponent, the Bills, moving it back. Now, I'd have to see it again - it may be possible that the Bills pushed him back some, but most of the movement of the ball backward was caused by the ball carrier, not the Bills.
So the question becomes where was the ball when the ball carrier's knee or other part of his body (except feet and hands) touch the ground? Or, if they didn't touch, where was the ball when some official stopped the play. If either of those events happened at the exact instant the ball carrier reached the ball forward, then he gets the spot as far as he extended the ball. But if either of those events happened at any other time, he doesn't get the spot based on the reach.
I don't think it was possible in the replay to determine when the knee or some other part of the body was down. I never saw a clear view of that actual touching. So you can't possibly overturn the call on the field by ruling that the knee was down at the exact instant necessary to give the ball carrier the full extension of his reach with the ball. If there isn't conclusive evidence that his knee touched at exactly the right time, you can't overturn the call on the field.
If the play ended because the ref blew the whistle at the absolute exact instant when the ball was at its farthest forward point, then the spot is there. I don't recall a replay where you could hear the whistle, but I'm pretty sure the whistle came AFTER the ball had reached out and pulled back. So the play didn't end with the ball at the farthest forward point, it ended later, after the ball carrier had retreated from the farthest point forward, so the ball has to be spotted where the ball was after he pulled it back.
Breaking the plane is irrelevant here. Breaking the plane applies only at the goal line, because as soon as the ball breaks the plane the play is over. (The ball is dead "when a touchdown, touchback, safety, field goal, or Try has been made." "A touchdown is scored when: (a) the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play into the end zone.") So the ball is dead when the ball gets to or past the goal line, and the play is over. But in this case the ball isn't dead until the knee is down or the ref says it's dead, and it's almost certain that neither of those things happened at the exact instant when the ball carrier had pushed the ball forward to its farthest point.
Since there was no clear evidence that the ball had passed the line to gain at the instant the play ended, the call on the field had to stand.
-
24 minutes ago, Augie said:
If it was “conclusive” it wouldn’t take 10 minutes. If the call on the field had been incomplete, I’d have no problem with the same outcome. But it wasn’t....
Correct. Can't overturn the call on the field either way.
And I agree that once they have to look and look and look, it just isn't conclusive enough to overturn.
-
3 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:
It’s really this simple. Honestly..... his foot probably wasn’t touching and it probably wasn’t a catch but there is absolutely NO ANGLE that showed that conclusively. Nothing was there to overrule that td. Just didn’t happen.
Correct. The intention of replay is to correct the obvious incorrect call. That was anything but obvious.
And the 4th and 1 reversal was worse. There they didn't even know the rules.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Scott7975 said:
I agree with this. Can't take that sack. Not 15 yards deep. At the same time... Tolbert on 2nd and 25 is also ridiculous.
For sure.
-
4 hours ago, DC Bills Fan said:
Unfortunately, when you watch the video, the ball is still moving at this point. His foot had just dragged the carpet and kicked up the old tires ... but when he actually had control, his foot then came down again out of bounds and it kicked up more tire.
The best replay that was shown was the split screen that showed it from both sides. The official was on this side and was shielded from the ball movement, so he made the call based on what he saw.
I think this was the right call, but the 4th down replay was not.
I saw what you saw, but the right call there was to conclude that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. When he did secure the ball, it still wasn't clear that Benjamin's foot was off the ground. It was really close, and if I had to bet my life I'd say his foot was off the ground. But there was not a clear look that showed conclusively that his foot WAS off the ground, and without clear evidence, they're required to up hold the call on the field.
-
6 hours ago, HappyDays said:
I just think the NFL should make every questionable call in favor of the exciting play. They're trying to make the games more interesting, but taking away a last second TD when there is NO clear evidence has the opposite effect. It's so weird to me, everyone loses when they overturn something like that. More bad publicity. If they favored the scoring play on every questionable call would anyone hate that?
That's interesting to me, because it's seemed clear for a couple of years now that if the ball carrier is tackled or goes out of bounds where he's in range of the sticks and where the spot is tough to be precise on, they spot so there's a first down. Over and over they do it. I'm sure that they've been told to spot in favor of giving the first down, and I'd suspect it's for the same reason you say they should rule in favor of the big play.
7 hours ago, Scott7975 said:But ratings have been declining for years.
Yes, and they're doing everything they can to prop them up.
Don't kid yourself - they do a lot of polling, and they know why people are watching or not watching. If whacking the Pats would be good for ratings, you'd see them whacking the Pats.
There's a reason Gronk got a only a one-game suspension, and I'd bet the reason is that their polling tells them more people watch when the Pats are winning, and probably also that more people watch when Gronk is playing. The NFL didn't want him off the field.
-
3 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:
Manufacturing drama might work on some people, but there are also people like me. It drives me away from the game. I use to watch every single NFL game I could watch. Now I only watch Bills games. Later in the season I might watch some of the games that might help the Bills. I rarely watch playoff games anymore. Sometimes I don't even fully watch the superbowl.
I just don't care anymore. All the rules and the obvious bias in officiating has made the sport a complete joke. I am also tired of NE's domination of the league. Its old, tired, and sickening. Especially with how cocky they and their fans are.
I know how you feel, but the only thing that matters is the ratings. The NFL knows they aren't going to get everyone to watch.
Look at major league baseball. Purists like pitchers duels, but the ratings say fans like home runs. So MLB turned a blind eye to all the drugs and let the home run totals explode. Ratings went up. Then MLB got caught and couldn't fight the publicity, so they had to shut down the drugs. Ratings dropped. So what happened? MLB juiced the baseballs, they hit more home runs in 2017 than any time in history. Ratings went up.
Does MLB care about the purists? Yes, but not if the purists are getting in the way of ratings.
The NFL is no different. They're in trouble. They're dealing with concussions, violence, kneeling, all sorts of things. If promoting the Pats helps ratings, the NFL definitely is going to do it. And if as a result you think the game is unwatchable, they really don't care, so long as more people like the show they're putting than people like you leave.
-
2 minutes ago, ThunderingHerd said:
I'd love it if the Bills were the "David" to knock off the "Goliath".
Me too.
Next season. Bills have taken the next step and Brady is over the hill. I think he clearly looks like he's slipping now, and I'm guessing next season we'll start to see the serious decline. He isn't nearly as accurate as even a year ago, and I think the league is finally catching up to their passing scheme. The Bills showed yesterday that you have to take away Gronk and be smart how to play the rest of their average receivers. If you can do that and have a pass rusher or two who actually hit him, he's becoming beatable.
Next season.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Klaista2k said:
Let's be honest Taylor kinda sucks.
Im thinking maybe we should go with Peterman next week. Thoughts?
Ridiculous.
-
1 hour ago, JinxedBill1 said:
Obviously I am with a lot of you thinking they have favoritism in the league office. Just this year we see the Gronk 1 game suspension, the terrible Steelers call and then our very own debacle of catch, no catch.
Yet I read a lot of you thinking the league should do something about it. IMO they won't because they like these things because it creates ratings. Hear me out, they manufacture these issues with the cheating, inflategate, etc. to get people's attention to the sport. It creates drama that attracts interest both in the media and game day.
So while I am with you all on the idiocy that is officiating, I think the league secretly likes it. People tune in just to watch them lose cuz they hate them so much.
Just my opinion here. The NFL is a entertainment business and what's more entertaining than having the empire (Pats) vie for control every year? I hate it, and I suspect many of you do but the common NFL fan eats it up.
Flame away. Oh if y'all think I'm wrong I got this info from Dunkirk....so....yeah.....legit.
I think there's a good deal of truth in this. The NFL, like any other successful business, is well tuned into what helps and hurts viewership.
I heard someone say once that baseball likes having the Yankees. It makes baseball a long-running morality play, with Goliath always looming. People like that story, and they really like it when some David comes along and knocks them out.
Same with the Pats. NFL loved the two Giant wins over the Pats in the Super Bowl, they loved the Pats wins over Atlanta and Seattle. It wouldn't be nearly as interesting if Titans had come from behind to beat Atlanta. The NFL likes having a team on top.
And I think they like it even better if the team has a little bit of evil attached to it, which the Pats do. Brady just isn't as likeable as Peyton, Belichick not nearly as likeable as Dungy. So they're easy to dislike a little. The cheating doesn't hurt, either.
The league knows what sells and what doesn't. The Pats sell, so the league isn't going out of their way to make it difficult for the Pats.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Commonsense said:
The Bills are 2/15 on fourth down conversions this season, that's 13.3 percent. Haushcka is 7/9 from 50 plus, 77 percent or so.
Wow. Second worst in the league on 4th down. I didn't realize that. 13th in attempts and second worst in conversions. And this is supposed to be a team that specializes in running the ball.
Given that, I'm with you. Kick it and make it. Pats are going to be ready to stop the run, and the Bills haven't been good in that situation, so kick it. Make it a 4 point game.
Thank You Two Bills Drive, Good Riddance BBMB and Their Mods
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
We lost a lot of knowledgeable posters who didn't move here when BBMB shut down. WhateverHappenedtoLarry, who was a Falcons fan, posted often at BBMB because he said it was the best football discussion he found anywhere. The guy really knew his stuff, and he knew the Bills, too.
And people complain about JM2009. I used to argue with him a lot, and he'd make me angry occasionally, but he knew his stuff, too. Really good insights, and he could back up what he thought with good data.
Problem at BBMB was that you had to be willing to put up with a lot of BS while you were there, so over time some good posters left.
One thing that was really useful about BBMB was that for whatever reason some people thought it was cool to be the first person to post news about the Bills. The result was that BBMB was the best place to go for news about the Bills. It didn't matter where the news broke first - ESPN, NFL.com, one of the networks, Buffalo News, Twitter - wherever it broke first, it showed up almost immediately on BBMB. I never looked anywhere else for news. Personally, I never understood why it mattered to be first to BBMB with the news, but enough people cared about it that it was a very useful news source.