leh-nerd skin-erd

Three consecutive calls overturned against the same team. Two involving touchdowns. Crazy.

I just know this. Rex is a big talker, it's a big part of who he is in public. When a guy like that fails to deliver, when the defense regresses, and when he goes out and hires his twin brother to elevate the play to top defense in the league...it's fair to expect him to deliver. He didn't, and the bills moved on. McDermott delivered, at least for now. After a such a long time walking in football darkness, why not just let the sun shine on your face for the next week or so?

Rex's relative was Rob.

No can do amigo. I start chanting into the mirror next thing you know you're climbing out of my television like that creepy girl from The Ring.

Damn I missed that one! The gift that keeps on giving.

This series of posts is like a Smothers Brothers skit, and just as funny. I pop in to check the musings on this massive running thread from time to time, and it's for just this sort of thing. Oxygen, soap, Dove! It's Ivory, you knucklehead! Correct! Special kudos for this gem: "Use your mind for good, not bad!". Thank you both.

but even then, the issue is still "is it conclusive?" and getting back to TPegs point if you have to look at it 30 times they are kind of missing the point about "conclusive". someone made a call on a close play, and it could have been called either way, and both sides coukd complain they got screwed. When it happens 2x in one game, it's fair to question whether or not it's bad luck or something nefarious.

I tried to research this issue in the nfl rule book and couldn't find anything definitive that was pro-first down or pro-bills ball. Admittedly I get bored pretty quick, so I didn't dig too deeply into it, and the danger can be reading what someone else might say on a message board and tking that as gospel. My issue was the overturn of the spot. On this view, the only logical answer is "inconclusive". I never saw the other sideline shot that showed he was clearly on his feet or on his knees, but to be honest I don't see how any view could have been conclusive. There are too many bodies in the way to definitively say what legs belong to what players, the RB has two legs of his own so maybe one is down and on is up--and the spot on the field by the official on the scene was what it was. If this was the only complaint I had with replay or the pats (or using your example it went against LeSean), I could live with it, but it's just one symptom of a larger problem. The KB play shows pass int and some real creative video review to come to the conclusion that with 100% certainty KBs foot was off the ground. Absurd.

"A toner, a musical boner"-the blonde from Pitch Perfect. I think you have a toner for George Carlin. I just wanted to point out there was sincerity afoot in the interaction I witnessed.

I heard someone thank a service member at the local food store today. The same person also wished him a Merry Christmas. The service member appeared to be genuinely touched, looked like he had tears in his eyes after the phrase "Thank you for his service to the country." was extended to him. When the well-wisher wished him a Merry Christmas, he responded with a smile "Thank you, and you as well!". Near as I can tell, both people involved were sincere. I followed the service member out to his car, pretending to be lost and looking for my own car, and heard him say to another person in his vehicle "I just met a really nice person in there who wished me...". I couldn't hear the whole thing as the door closed and I accidentally set off the alarm to my SUV. I cannot guarantee he was happy, but I can say he seemed pleased.

Agreed. I like to get angrier earlier than that.

No, not at all. You have every right to share your opinion, I just shared mine. Why would exchanging thoughts on an anonymous message board make either of us cry?

I met George Carlin once. Nice, articulate guy who had his own way of looking at the world. Interestingly he didn't do his stand up routine when we were speaking, nor did he rant on about the military and/or the people who serve. None of the seven words came up either. I don't doubt he believed much, maybe all of what he said, but I'd bet you he would have had strong opinions on folks choosing him as their prophet to support opinions that appear to have strung together 5-7 minutes after a significant blow to the head.

I think it's possible to way over complicate issues like this. You mentioned that someone said her success was based on merit, I'd humbly offer that while probable, there is no way to know that. She could be the great grand niece of the founder of cbs, an alum of the same school as the guy responsible for programming, or the best candidate to ever walk in the door. It's possible, to, to consider whether being a pioneer in her field (from a gender perspective) resulted in both hardship and opportunity. I did the best I could...I watched and listened and moved on. I wasn't a fan at first, considered the experience a push by the end, though I'm usually not a fan of most broadcasts. I'm not a sexist, but I think I am an announcerist. I can live with that, and with the knowledge that not everything is a teachable moment for everyone.

Don't go half-way. I'm moving to Dunkirk.

And that would seem to be McDermott ball. I can't see him preaching anything other than discipline and giving it 100%.

you're right about the standard definition, but gronkowski's hit was egregious. it was not an extension of the play, a hit that drifted too high, or a shot that hit too low. it was, even by nfl standards, a nasty, viscous and crappy thing to do. he had time to think, he had time to settle down, and he chose to hit the guy. he expressed frustration that built up during the game because of the applications of the rules, and chose to act the way he chose to act. I've not seen one player for the bills, nor one coach, suggest that retribution was on the menu. so, adding subjectivity and the threat of a harsher penalty seems like a bad idea to me. i don't advocate targeting the guy, but it's a fine line between playing a guy like gronkowski to win AND having to worry that your shot to the shoulders can be considered retribution and or retaliatory. to be honest, they really should be watching gronkowski like a hawk to make sure he doesn't push the envelope.

no, I wasn't talking about an eye for an eye, I'm talking about the equal application of discipline and punishment. there is a framework for level of discipline, and it's been set at one game. the equitable punishment for someone following a similar course of action is 1 game. when you suggest a 'harsher' penalty should apply, you're adding a layer of subjectivity that need not be added. I have to tell you klos, I see gronkowski's actions as pre-meditated. the play was over, he looked at a guy laying on the ground and made a conscious decision to inflict pain on him. he was successful in doing so. on the other hand I can see you seeing it differently. reasonable people can disagree. if it's a game on the shelf, it is a game on the shelf, and the nfl has said quite loudly...that type of activity warrants a one game suspension.

after applying the same discipline to any bills player who loses focus this weekend, I'd be ok with that. you just can't afford to send two different messages, in a span of three weeks, with one application to one of the highest profile players in the game and a harsher penalty to a regular joe.

so we can agree to disagree on brady and his suspension. the ridiculous part of it to me was the implication that the nfl set up an elaborate ruse to accuse him of wrongdoing to get him off the field. funny thing is, the nfl could significantly impact a team's performance just by doing little things like suspending a player for a few games for clubbing a guy in the noggin after a play ended. the nfl has said nothing about screwing up the gronkowski suspension, they simply seem to think that was the right call for that type of play. you're advocating a new, different, and maybe even emotional response for the next guy, which is not all that different than the way some folks want the bills players to respond to the gronk cheap shot.

I don't know about "justify" or not, that's too deep for me. I would think Tre' White probably would be "justified" to respond, but that's an emotional response, not rational. I agree that retaliation via cheap shot is 100% the wrong way to go. I disagree though, with the premise that the nfl should hit a bill's player harder than they hit gronkowski. more than a few causal observers feel that gronkowski benefited from the pats treatment, that the suspension was unreasonably light because goodell et al wanted the money player back on the field as quickly as possible. personally, I believe that, because it's virtually impossible to justify a short term suspension for that sort of play given the talk about head injuries and cte. that said, the potential downside to penalizing one high-profile player on the highest profile team with one set of standards, and subsequently taking a harder line on a second player just because you can is substantial. with fans seemingly already staying away from games in large numbers, it sends the wrong message. add in other social factors, it could get ugly. btw--on that note, much was made of the suh punch to the side of tyrod's head. I get the concern, and think Suh is a dirty player, but felt the worst that should happen there was an unsportsmanlike penalty for clapping the guy in the head. Earlier in the game, though, another dolphins player sacked Tyrod and slammed his forearm into the back of tyrod's helmet. I believe I saw the official speaking to the fins player after the hit (he definitely spoke to a fins player, just couldn't see if it was the offending player) and got the feeling he was warning him. I can't imagine that not being penalized against an upper tier qb like brady, brees, rothlisberger etc and can't quite understand some of the things that go on with taylor. anyway, the nfl should follow their own precedent and not apply a sliding scale of justice.

be that as it may, the question was what the suspension should be. the nfl set the standard for deliberate hits similar to the gronkowski shot. since he got one game for completing a play, targeting the back of a guy's head for an elbow shot, I'd think the nfl should suspend a player who follows the course of action he did for one game. the fact that fans are out talking about it has nothing to do with the player. Tre White, for one, seems to have moved on, which is what most non-jackasses tend to do. that was the problem with the nfl response to begin with. the punishment did not seem to fit the crime, emotionally-speaking anyways. but, given that WAS the response, why would it be different if it happened again? does the nfl say...wait, now we're REALLY serious about this stuff. in the course of a play, throw the flag and hit 'em for 15 yards. for gronkesque wrongdoing...one game. for something worse---a second spitter targeting gronkwoski as he leaves the field---handle accordingly.

well, if they did it right, you wouldn't know it's pre-meditated, so that wouldn't seem reasonable given that they only suspended gronkowksi for a game for an obvious cheap shot after the play was over. I'd guess if it went down during a play, 15 yards and that's the end of it. If they lined him up after a play as gronkowski did, assuming no prior conduct issues, the appropriate suspension would be one game since the standard has been set. I don't believe there will be any retaliatory hits, I don't believe McDermott would approve of it and can't see a player being a douche just because gronkowski pulled a douche move. It's not the way professionals conduct themselves. The result is likely to be gronkowski catching 10 for 285. Just the way the world works, and one reason I'll skip watching it.

i'm reminded of the scene from Goodfellas right after Tommy is outsourced to the afterlife. A voice on the phone says..."He's gone, nothing anyone could do about it....". Why perpetually rehash the guys that have moved on? What's the point? Speculation that Tyrod was the missing chess piece that results in a w against the chargers is certainly fair, but ignoring the performance that lead up to the change is not. As for McDermott "owning" that move, geesh, good or bad he seems like a guy who owns everything about his role and wants to. As for his process commentary...McDonalds became a success in large part because of the process followed with the humble french fry ( not due to the Royale with Cheese as SOME people seem to think). One telling aspect for me is the reaction of a guy Shady seemingly all in. There is a guy willing to speak his mind, right wrong or other. 2 more games. Lets hope Tyrod can have a complete game, Brady struggles and Gronk, well screw him.

Wait, are you saying we have less more good players?