Big Ben, is he a HOFer?

[124]

he caused the FUMBLE

You can't cause a fumble on an incomplete pass.

[serphnx]

big ben had a pretty good rookie season.

He didn't really do much. He averages less than 20 throws a game and less than 200 yards. You can pull up the stats but iirc he also barely had double digit TD/INT, the TD/INT ratio was around 1 at best.

[124]

Handoffburger is the best QB in the history of the NFL of turning around, handing the ball off, and letting the RB's and Defense do the majority of the work for him and then afterwords, getting the majority of the credit.

Last year's Super Bowl was a strange, moons lining up, type thing, against one of the worst Defenses in the NFL.

If I had a big throw to make, there are at least 10 QB's I'd rather have back there then him.

[afosomf]

You can't cause a fumble on an incomplete pass.

you are quite the pats fan

[afosomf]

Handoffburger is the best QB in the history of the NFL of turning around, handing the ball off, and letting the RB's and Defense do the majority of the work for him and then afterwords, getting the majority of the credit.

Last year's Super Bowl was a strange, moons lining up, type thing, against one of the worst Defenses in the NFL.

If I had a big throw to make, there are at least 10 QB's I'd rather have back there then him.

yea that throw to Homes was not great, gamewinning TD drive in

SB in final 2 minutes, when brady does that you can talk

[SMC]

he caused the FUMBLE

You can't cause a fumble on an incomplete pass.

The problem WAS NOT the Tuck Rule.

The Rule is proper. The Refs failed to apply the Rule properly.

The rule clearly states that if the QB has both hands on the football he is not in a throwing position and, thus, it is a fumble.

Brady brought the ball down and had both hands on the ball when he was hit. The Ref screwed up the call.

[Sperm Edwards]

"Kicked ass" in his rookie year?

You mean his rookie year where the Steelers ran the ball 65% of the time (NFL record) and Big Ben was awful against the Jets in the playoffs (Reggie Tongue anyone?) and was equally awful against the Pats AT HOME in the AFC title game?

He was terrific for a rookie. Watching Sanchez it reminds me how great he was for such an inexperienced QB.

But based on his own play, Pittsburgh should have lost the Jets playoff game and he was hardly an asset in the superbowl the following year. If Pittsburgh wasn't facing a melting-down rookie in the championship game Ben would have lost that game for them as well. For most of the superbowl, until that last drive where he was great (along with some awful defense helping him), he was crap against an Arizona pass defense that yielded 36 TD's, most in the NFL, despite playing in a division with horrible SF, Sea, and StL teams. People retell this story like he made the Cardinals his bitch all game long when he was crapping the bed for most of it. But for the Pittsburgh defense scoring on an interception return, Ben loses that game for them as well.

The point is he has benefited from the team around him more than a truly elite QB, sure-fire HOF'er, like Manning.

I have nothing against him. He's a damn solid QB but he's not on the same level as Peyton or Brady. Put Ben on Indy and Manning on Pittsburgh and try to argue that Ben would have 2 SB rings (or even 1). The 2004-2008 Steelers with Manning instead of Ben are a more dominant team. The 2004-2008 Colts with Ben instead of Manning are the 2000-2001 Jets.

[Sperm Edwards]

Handoffburger is the best QB in the history of the NFL of turning around, handing the ball off, and letting the RB's and Defense do the majority of the work for him and then afterwords, getting the majority of the credit.

Last year's Super Bowl was a strange, moons lining up, type thing, against one of the worst Defenses in the NFL.

If I had a big throw to make, there are at least 10 QB's I'd rather have back there then him.

He's better than you're giving him credit for. It's not like he had all day to get rid of the ball with that awful OL.

[neckdemon]

He didn't really do much. He averages less than 20 throws a game and less than 200 yards. You can pull up the stats but iirc he also barely had double digit TD/INT, the TD/INT ratio was around 1 at best.

ok...he played in 14 and started 13 games. had 295 attempts. about 22 attempts/game. 17 TD's and 11 int's. he had a 5.8 Td percentage. he averaged 8.9 yds/attempt. completed 66.4% of his passes. had a 98.1 qb rating and his team won all 13 games that he started. pretty damn good rookie season if you ask me.

[afosomf]

The problem WAS NOT the Tuck Rule.

The Rule is proper. The Refs failed to apply the Rule properly.

The rule clearly states that if the QB has both hands on the football he is not in a throwing position and, thus, it is a fumble.

Brady brought the ball down and had both hands on the ball when he was hit. The Ref screwed up the call.

No Sh1t Coleman screwed up, 2 hands were on the ball and Brady knew

he fumbled, how he finds that conclusive evidence to overturn is

beyond me.

2nd SB kasay kicks ball out of bounds when pats were reeling.

3rd one MCnabb choked so bad it was pathetic

[SMC]

He was terrific for a rookie. Watching Sanchez it reminds me how great he was for such an inexperienced QB.

But based on his own play, Pittsburgh should have lost the Jets playoff game and he was hardly an asset in the superbowl the following year. If Pittsburgh wasn't facing a melting-down rookie in the championship game Ben would have lost that game for them as well. For most of the superbowl, until that last drive where he was great (along with some awful defense helping him), he was crap against an Arizona pass defense that yielded 36 TD's, most in the NFL, despite playing in a division with horrible SF, Sea, and StL teams. People retell this story like he made the Cardinals his bitch all game long when he was crapping the bed for most of it. But for the Pittsburgh defense scoring on an interception return, Ben loses that game for them as well.

The point is he has benefited from the team around him more than a truly elite QB, sure-fire HOF'er, like Manning.

I have nothing against him. He's a damn solid QB but he's not on the same level as Peyton or Brady. Put Ben on Indy and Manning on Pittsburgh and try to argue that Ben would have 2 SB rings (or even 1). The 2004-2008 Steelers with Manning instead of Ben are a more dominant team. The 2004-2008 Colts with Ben instead of Manning are the 2000-2001 Jets.

I agree with your overall assessment.

The point was that while Big Ben did play well for a rookie, he was far from "kicking ass" considering that he only threw the ball 35% of the time.

[Garb]

Today on twitter, Peter King (@SI_PeterKing) brought up a really interesting question from a reader.

"If Big Ben's career were to end today, is he a HOFer?"

King said no.

Personally, I think he's crazy. Ben has the stats and the rings to prove. Such a clutch QB. Without him, Steelers are nothing. And besides, he plays for the Steelers. The HOF loves the Steelers.

I think Peter King is pretty much an assclown...then again, most of the media is....

btw, Princess, Big Ben won his first SB ring with a qb rating of 17. He redeemed himself with that come from behind win against the Cards last year.

[afosomf]

the funniest part is the refs did not call the 5 yd chuck rule all year and

Coleman comes out of the blue with this Tuck ruling lol

[SMC]

I think Peter King is pretty much an assclown...then again, most of the media is....

btw, Princess, Big Ben won his first SB ring with a qb rating of 17. He redeemed himself with that come from behind win against the Cards last year.

Rumor was that Big Ben was on the take and the mafia paid him big money to throw the game.

After the Steelers won, the mafia sought to get back at Big Ben for screwing up their deal. Hence, the suspicious motor cycle accident during the offseason.

[neckdemon]

The problem WAS NOT the Tuck Rule.

The Rule is proper. The Refs failed to apply the Rule properly.

The rule clearly states that if the QB has both hands on the football he is not in a throwing position and, thus, it is a fumble.

Brady brought the ball down and had both hands on the ball when he was hit. The Ref screwed up the call.

here's the rule right form the rule book. it doesn't say anything about having 2 hands on the ball...but it does state that if the tuck has been completed then it's a fumble. with 2 hands on theball i have to say the tuck was completed.....therefore fumble.

Article 2 It is a Forward Pass if:

(a) the ball initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent

[afosomf]

here's the rule right form the rule book. it doesn't say anything about having 2 hands on the ball...but it does state that if the tuck has been completed then it's a fumble. with 2 hands on theball i have to say the tuck was completed.....therefore fumble.

it was a F U to Al Davis nothing more

Conclusive hardly? pats did not have challenges either, since it

was under 2 minutes, it took Coleman to determine outcome

[Boozer76]

here's the rule right form the rule book. it doesn't say anything about having 2 hands on the ball...but it does state that if the tuck has been completed then it's a fumble. with 2 hands on theball i have to say the tuck was completed.....therefore fumble.

I'm pretty certain you have quoted the rule since it had been changed, because this was definitely not in place at the time :

Note 3: If the player loses possession of the ball while attempting to re**** his arm, it is a

fumble.

The problem was Brady was beginning to re**** his arm when he fumbled. The old rule stated the QB had to completely re**** his arm before it could be deemed a fumble.

[neckdemon]

I'm pretty certain you have quoted the rule since it had been changed, because this was definitely not in place at the time :

Note 3: If the player loses possession of the ball while attempting to re**** his arm, it is a

fumble.

The problem was Brady was beginning to re**** his arm when he fumbled. The old rule stated the QB had to completely re**** his arm before it could be deemed a fumble.

idk...maybe they just added note 2 because the refs were too stupid to figure it out? because they way you're explaining it would mean he could sit there for as long as he wanted and as long as he didn't re**** his arm it's still an incomplete pass?

[Irish Jet]

Ben is well on his way. Stupid question asking about right now.

[villain_the_foe]

Today on twitter, Peter King (@SI_PeterKing) brought up a really interesting question from a reader.

"If Big Ben's career were to end today, is he a HOFer?"

King said no.

Personally, I think he's crazy. Ben has the stats and the rings to prove. Such a clutch QB. Without him, Steelers are nothing. And besides, he plays for the Steelers. The HOF loves the Steelers.

Not if it ended today. Too early. However, I didnt believe in Roth until I seen that final drive he pulled off in this past superbowl. Beautiful. This kid is a future HOF though no doubt.

[Boozer76]

idk...maybe they just added note 2 because the refs were too stupid to figure it out? because they way you're explaining it would mean he could sit there for as long as he wanted and as long as he didn't re**** his arm it's still an incomplete pass?

Skip to 3:20 to see the rule at the time. I used to argue the same ting you are saying all the time. Technically I guess the QB could have done just that:

WHEQtASq9BI

[neckdemon]

Skip to 3:20 to see the rule at the time. I used to argue the same ting you are saying all the time. Technically I guess the QB could have done just that:

WHEQtASq9BI

idk...whatever they added exactly was done so that refs wouldn't make the same mistake again. the nfl isn't going to admit that there was a mistake made that led to the wrong team in a superbowl...but clearly there was or the rule wouldn't have needed clarification.

[Boozer76]

idk...whatever they added exactly was done so that refs wouldn't make the same mistake again. the nfl isn't going to admit that there was a mistake made that led to the wrong team in a superbowl...but clearly there was or the rule wouldn't have needed clarification.

The mistake was the way the rule was written and interpreted. The refs made the call per the rules at that time. I hated the call, but they were correct per the rulebook. The rules have since been amended so the same thing does not happen again.

[afosomf]

The mistake was the way the rule was written and interpreted. The refs made the call per the rules at that time. I hated the call, but they were correct per the rulebook. The rules have since been amended so the same thing does not happen again.

No way that call was Conclusive

it was called a Fumble and nothing on that video would leave me

to believe otherwise

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

If his career was to end today, I don't think he makes it in. However, I expect that he will play some more and by the time his career does end he will be HOF worthy.

[Sperm Edwards]

If his career was to end today, I don't think he makes it in. However, I expect that he will play some more and by the time his career does end he will be HOF worthy.

Lots of people feel this way and I'd agree with that as well.

[Boozer76]

No way that call was Conclusive

it was called a Fumble and nothing on that video would leave me

to believe otherwise

Did you watch the whole video? If you did you would notice the exact same call went our way for Vinny T earlier that season. The rule was written clearly, it is an incomplete pass as the time. The rule did not allow for interpretation of the QB's intent. So the call was correct per the rules. Now everyone with half a brain knows that the rules should have dictated it to be a fumble, but at the time they didn;t and the refs are bound to call the game per the written rules. Coleman did nothing wrong.

[afosomf]

Did you watch the whole video? If you did you would notice the exact same call went our way for Vinny T earlier that season. The rule was written clearly, it is an incomplete pass as the time. The rule did not allow for interpretation of the QB's intent. So the call was correct per the rules. Now everyone with half a brain knows that the rules should have dictated it to be a fumble, but at the time they didn;t and the refs are bound to call the game per the written rules. Coleman did nothing wrong.

I saw whole video and it was not enough to overturn

The NFL refs could not even call the 5 yd Chuck penalty correctly and

you are assuming there was clear evidence to overturn this fumble.

This was a clear FU to Al Davis

Brady knew he fumbled when he left the field in tears. Watch the tape

[neckdemon]

Did you watch the whole video? If you did you would notice the exact same call went our way for Vinny T earlier that season. The rule was written clearly, it is an incomplete pass as the time. The rule did not allow for interpretation of the QB's intent. So the call was correct per the rules. Now everyone with half a brain knows that the rules should have dictated it to be a fumble, but at the time they didn;t and the refs are bound to call the game per the written rules. Coleman did nothing wrong.

testaverde never got the ball all the way back to his other hand.....that's my problem with the call and i'll never be convinced otherwise. while it was similar....it was still different. brady got the ball all the way back to his other hand and had both hands on the ball when it came loose. imo....there is no more forward motion there and it's a fumble. of course my opinion doesn't matter and it's revisionist history at this point. but the nfl wouldn't have bothered to have to go in and clarify the rule if they didn't feel in was misinterpreted and that a mistake was in fact made.

[afosomf]

testaverde never got the ball all the way back to his other hand.....that's my problem with the call and i'll never be convinced otherwise. while it was similar....it was still different. brady got the ball all the way back to his other hand and had both hands on the ball when it came loose. imo....there is no more forward motion there and it's a fumble. of course my opinion doesn't matter and it's revisionist history at this point. but the nfl wouldn't have bothered to have to go in and clarify the rule if they didn't feel in was misinterpreted and that a mistake was in fact made.

Yes it was a clear mistake...ask 100% of players and coaches and you will

get a vote of about 2000 to 60. **** even some pats fans knew it was a fumble....brady was laughing at presser

[Boozer76]

testaverde never got the ball all the way back to his other hand.....that's my problem with the call and i'll never be convinced otherwise. while it was similar....it was still different. brady got the ball all the way back to his other hand and had both hands on the ball when it came loose. imo....there is no more forward motion there and it's a fumble. of course my opinion doesn't matter and it's revisionist history at this point. but the nfl wouldn't have bothered to have to go in and clarify the rule if they didn't feel in was misinterpreted and that a mistake was in fact made.

And that was the problem. There was nothing written at the time to say that having two hands on the ball constituted a fumble, or that if the ball pointed towards the ground then it was a fumble. The rule stated that if the ball was still in the motion of being tucked into the body then it was an incomplete pass.

There's no disputing the rules should have clearly determined it was a fumble, but they didn't at the time. The rules clearly dictated it was an incomplete pass. The problem was with the rule, not the way it was called on the field.

[Boozer76]

Yes it was a clear mistake...ask 100% of players and coaches and you will

get a vote of about 2000 to 60. **** even some pats fans knew it was a fumble....brady was laughing at presser

You're right. It was a clear mistake in how the rules were written at the time.

[afosomf]

And that was the problem. There was nothing written at the time to say that having two hands on the ball constituted a fumble, or that if the ball pointed towards the ground then it was a fumble. The rule stated that if the ball was still in the motion of being tucked into the body then it was an incomplete pass.

There's no disputing the rules should have clearly determined it was a fumble, but they didn't at the time. The rules clearly dictated it was an incomplete pass. The problem was with the rule, not the way it was called on the field.

seriously do you think pat fans would be screaming for Tuck rule

after that fumble....Seriously? You did not see Brady performing

a Tuck manuever to convince refs to go look upstairs.

Again for a team to win on that unclear rule and then win a SB where the refs

did not enforce the 5 yd chuck rule ...is a joke.

[neckdemon]

And that was the problem. There was nothing written at the time to say that having two hands on the ball constituted a fumble, or that if the ball pointed towards the ground then it was a fumble. The rule stated that if the ball was still in the motion of being tucked into the body then it was an incomplete pass.

There's no disputing the rules should have clearly determined it was a fumble, but they didn't at the time. The rules clearly dictated it was an incomplete pass. The problem was with the rule, not the way it was called on the field.

i don't think the rules clearly dictated anything, and it was left to the interpretation of a man who got it wrong imo....i don't have a copy of the 2001 rules...but if you're telling me that the only difference is that article 2 isn't there...well then that doesn't clarify it, imo. it's not like they changed the rule at all....they just clarified it so the same mistake wouldn't happen again. hey if you're of the opinion that the call was correct by the rule book..then that's cool...there's obviously a ref who would agree with you. but i still say if the only difference in the rule is the clarification of article 2 then it was a wrong call, imo. because the rule was never changed......just clarified. and, imo, it was clarified in response to a blown call that directly affected the participants of a superbowl. and,btw, there's till not anything written about 2 hands on the football. just to say...."hey stupid, if the tuck is completed then it's a fumble"

[afosomf]

i don't think the rules clearly dictated anything, and it was left to the interpretation of a man who got it wrong imo....i don't have a copy of the 2001 rules...but if you're telling me that the only difference is that article 2 isn't there...well then that doesn't clarify it, imo. it's not like they changed the rule at all....they just clarified it so the same mistake wouldn't happen again. hey if you're of the opinion that the call was correct by the rule book..then that's cool...there's obviously a ref who would agree with you. but i still say if the only difference in the rule is the clarification of article 2 then it was a wrong call, imo. because the rule was never changed......just clarified. and, imo, it was clarified in response to a blown call that directly affected the participants of a superbowl.

Ask a Player outside of pats org on that call, and they will all tell you

Fumble. i asked John Mobley from Broncos and he laughed at call.