Jump to content

Sperm Edwards

Moderators
  • Content count

    39,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

Everything posted by Sperm Edwards

  1. Refs & running game killed us Sunday

    +1 The "identity of the offense" is flinging mud against the wall to mix things up and try different things per opponent (or per possession/per play) because they have substandard talent that can't dictate the game.
  2. Again, they did the same thing last night in the Colts/Titans game. It's an imperfect system, and they sometimes get it wrong.
  3. Judgment is always used to decide possession (when possession is questioned), and it's done all the time. Sunday wasn't the first nor the last time. The reality is with the number of plays in the NFL every year, there are going to be a few where the threshold for certainty is at x-percent plus (or minus) a micron. The alternative is a ref going back out there and effectively say, "In our estimation, even though we think replay showed the player did not re-establish full control in bounds, by NFL rules we're unable to reverse the call and must let [what we feel or know to be] an erroneous call stand." I think if the rulebook itself (touchback + possession change) wasn't so stupid, even a bad call here would be far less controversial. Barring a turnover on the ensuing play(s) a FG would make it a 7-point deficit with enough time for 2 more Jets possessions, or we'd still have had 2 more shots (if we went for it on 4th down) to punch it in from point-blank range.
  4. It just happened again last night. Personally, I thought Doyle had established possession. On replay they thought he didn't, and reversed it. I was able to see it both ways. Sometimes it's that close, with the official(s) 100% sure, but others may think it's not so clear (and therefore not irrefutable). I don't know. I see it on both sides: the refs can use judgment, seeing the play in motion, to decide the ground aided in establishing full control (with the ground being out of bounds) and therefore he didn't do enough to re-establish possession. But was that obvious enough to overturn the ruling on the field? Most say no. But then, fan polls aren't exactly unbiased, as most NFL fans despise the Patriots in the first place.
  5. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    I don't know that that's the case. They can say they saw him fumble, and that the judgment is the ground - which is out of bounds - aided in establishing full control. In either case the rule itself makes no sense, where the defense gains possession of the football, and it didn't make sense when we benefitted from it last year either. Even if they rule ASJ didn't re-establish control in bounds before hitting the ground, it's not like anyone on NE established possession either, and there's no opinion/judgment controversy that the last player to have possession was on offense. The rule rewards the wrong team, and the justification why is wholly insufficient.
  6. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    The obvious reality is still photos don't prove established possession; they can only prove not-having possession. It's quite easy to show a still photo of a player with his hands on the ball, that looks like full and obvious possession in the photo, where officials said the player didn't establish control. Look at Monday night's overturned replay. Indy's TE fumbled, but on replay they ruled that he never had full possession, reversed the call on the field, and ruled it an incomplete pass. I would have little trouble showing you a still frame photo of the ball in his hands, and it would look like unquestionable, full possession. Or do any image search for "ruled incomplete" or some similar variation and see all the incomplete passes that appear to show more clear possession than Sunday. I wouldn't expect you or me or any Jets fan to be happy that we didn't get the TD, and and it's that much worse because it's the cheaters, but a supposedly damning still photo simply doesn't prove possession. Establishing possession is more of a judgment call you see in motion. That's the whole premise behind "did he make a football move?" rules: it takes more than simply showing a hand (or even 2 hands) on the ball to establish controlled possession. I'm not saying the call was incontrovertibly correct; just that I can see how it was overturned. And also it isn't a factor if he freaking holds onto it (and also that the rule, where possession changes, is total crap).
  7. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    Yeah I'm not saying he didn't. I'm saying on replay they see he lost possession and couldn't see that he clearly regained it until he was out of bounds. Depends on how they're looking at it I guess. I don't even know, on the original call, if the ref even realized the ball came out for that split-second, and that's what seemed so damning on replay. Just saying I can see it both ways. It was really close.
  8. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    I can see, and it would be better if they hadn't overturned it. But you're looking at a still that doesn't mean he has full control. Control is determined by moving. They go nuts - to the point where, in the past, they used to do that "football move" stuff - where they require more than a still of the ball touching his hand on a freeze frame. In other words, a single freeze frame can show lost possession, but it doesn't necessarily show possession. Just saying I can see how it was overturned. Doesn't change 2 things: 1) He should have held onto the f***ing ball. 2) The rule is ****ing moronic. At worst, it should be Jets ball on the 1 or something, like when there's DPI in the EZ.
  9. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    It's very close, but I can see how it'd be overturned from these images. They see a fumble but don't see him re-establish full control until he's hit the sideline. It sucks - particularly because it benefitted NE - but it's certainly not the worst call ever.
  10. I've read enough opinions (not just on JN) that say it's not worth the huge cost to move up to #1, especially in a QB class like this. If you are strongly against trading up from ~picks #6-12 up to #1 do you also feel it's a no-brainer to trade down to gain the Rams' end of the RGIII deal? Something like trading from #1 down to ~#6-12 overall in 2018, and pick up a 2nd rounder ~#40-45 overall in 2018, plus more 1st round picks in 2019 and 2020? We'd still (presumably) get a QB worthy of a top 10ish overall pick, plus we'd have upcoming: three 2nd round picks in 2018 (more than enough to also use a 2nd rd pick on a QB in 2018 and not sweat it) two 1st round picks in 2019 two 1st round picks in 2020 My own stance has been that, in taking a QB at #1 (a consensus #1 overall talent QB prospect; not reaching two picks even higher for Blake Bortles), you're surrendering all that compensation whether you naturally ended up at #1 overall or traded up to get there. But one is far more controversial than the other. Just curious what others think.
  11. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    I get that, and don't disagree. I said a few times it's a close and tough call. But also I kind of know the real likelihood that he regained possession and re-established control in the span of time/distance he had from the point where the ball's in the air. They always make such a big deal about establishing control and such; I don't see how he could have had control in that amount of time/distance, from where the ball came out onward. For a ref, I can see how that's seen as conclusive. It looks like the ground, which out of bounds, causes the re-establishment of possession. But I don't dispute that there isn't a shot of him clearly without possession as he's crossed the line. I can see it both ways. He should have just held onto it.
  12. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    I'm not saying no, since I don't think it's perfectly clear he did or didn't regain control on replay, but I can see how the call went that way without a bunch of conspiracy ideas floated around. It's hard (if not impossible) to fully lose control at the half yard line, with the ball touching no part of either hand, and then in the span of a tenth of a second or less, fully re-establish possession and full control in the air, before crossing those first turf fibers. Looked like he regained possession as he hit the ground (the ground squeezed the ball into a hand-ball-chest sandwich). But then, the ground itself is out of bounds. It's very close. There's no question at all it's a TD if he doesn't lose possession of it in the first place. And it's still a stupid rule, whether he regained possession or not.
  13. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    That part is close. The idea that he never lost possession is ridiculous. Know what should have happened? He should have held onto the ****ing football.
  14. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    Lol yourself. You said he never lost possession, and that it wasn't shown on any angle anywhere, which is patently ridiculous. I said already that the whole thing is whether or not ASJ regained possession before he was out of bounds.
  15. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    A still shot of the moment where the ball's clearly out is cherry picking? Lol, okay.
  16. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    Lolwut? From Butler's angle/position, there's the same point in time where the ball popped out above, from another angle where you can see the goal line: The ball's a good half-yard from the goal line. Hey, **** the Pats, but again, how about this: Sefarian-Jenkins needs to hold onto the ****ing football. Here's a shot of Ware clearly not having possession as the ball crossed the goal-line. You tell me which of the two was the closer call. The ruling was that Sefarian-Jenkins didn't regain full possession again until he was out of bounds in the EZ. That's a much closer call, but he clearly fumbled before crossing the plane. It's a tough call - and no matter what the call, I think the existing rule where there's a change of possession, in any other than NE recovering in bounds, is moronic.
  17. Blandino and Pereria weigh in

    The big controversy with the Tuck Rule was that it had never been called in a game before, more than 99.999% of diehard NFL fans had never heard of the rule before, and for the refs to pull it out in that situation was insanity. It's hard to swallow - especially vs the Pats - but this was nothing like that situation. We benefitted from this identical ruling just last year vs the Chiefs. Ware fumbled when trying to stretch over the goal line, they ruled he lost possession before that, and the ball bounced out of bounds when in the EZ. And just like yesterday, that was also called a TD on the field, that was reversed on replay. That said, how about Sefarian-Jenkins should just hold onto the ****ing football? It's a stupid rule that should have been thrown out the second it was first proposed. It was idiotic when called in the past, and it was idiotic yesterday. The rule should be quite simple: If it's fumbled on or inside the 1, place the ball on the 1. If fumbled behind that, then it should be the spot of the fumble. (Only reason for the latter part is to prevent a player from trying to advance a fumble on purpose in a desperation scenario; and if it is clear & obvious it was a purposeful fumble attempt, then call a penalty that takes it back 15 yds from the spot of the fumble, plus a loss of down like with intentional grounding).
  18. If we did end up with the #1 pick

    Personally I don’t have a problem trading a couple #1s to move up if the prospect is all that. I kind of expected this to turn into a “is the #1 pick worth multiple #1 picks or not” thread, even though it was clearly directed just at those who would not give up a couple of #1s to trade up in the first place. No big deal. I just wanted to see if there was any consistency with the “nope, not worth it” crowd. IMO if we’ve scouted the QB right (lol), and he’s really worth the #1 pick (instead of just being the best of a trash QB draft class), he’s more likely to have at least an above-average career with a good 10-12 year span playing in his prime. That’s more than enough time to not look back with regret at the extra high picks burned way back when. Especially if we’re drafting ILBs, safeties, and redundant DE-DTs with those 1st round picks (even high 1st round picks) anyway. Not to mention, a QB drafted that high is geting at least 2 years’ worth of chances. By the time it’s clear beyond any doubt that he isn’t all that, if he does end up being a bust, we’re back to having our full stock of 1st round picks and a GM can then take a shot on another high-pick QB prospect without much controversy. While the extra picks you lost only compounded the initial whiff, they weren’t making a total bust QB into a SB champ either.
  19. Only way to really root for an 0-11 finish would be after we already lost the next 8-10 in a row. Then with almost nothing left on the season, we might as well properly finish what we started.
  20. Yeah, this franchise has had more than its own share of the runs.
  21. NYG Wheels Are Coming Off

    Think it was only $1m, since he never made it to the opening day roster. Don't you feel better now? I know I do.
  22. Could argue it encouraged them to draft Wilson. Led to them staying away from a QB in the middle of round 1 (Weeden), or trading a bunch of picks to move up to #7 for Tannehill, or forcing the issue a round earlier for Osweiller. Likewise, despite that one game, Flynn wasn't nearly enough of a sure thing to wait until rounds 5-7 for his competition. Just how it works out sometimes.
  23. Eli Manning? Just off the top of my head. Also consider that teams staying pat at #1/#2, instead of trading down, are forgoing that type of compensation. Depending on one's point of view, those teams also gave up such compensation to take their guy at #1/#2 overall.
  24. This is pretty much what I'm hoping for at this point. Like the way 2012's QB draft ended up. Plenty of talent at that position on draft day (therefore leave it to the Jets to extend Sanchez the month before ) . 4 QBs taken in round 1, including 1, 2, and 8 overall. Then another in round 2. Then the 6th QB taken, in the middle of round 3, is the best of the bunch, and the 8th one taken is at worst neck & neck with the #1 guy (innate talent aside). Dramatically so when considering the draft capital kept that allowed their teams to do other things (or would have, if Washington didn't also spend including that year's #6 and #39 overall, plus their next two 1st round picks, on RGIII). Who's to say where Washington might have been these past few years if they had all those picks back and just took only Cousins. Even if they only took two safeties that first year lol.
×