Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Who wins this Wild Card weekend matchup?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Carolina Panthers

    4 25.00%
  • New Orleans Saints

    12 75.00%
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 136 to 147 of 147
  1. #136
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    42,938
    As far as the grounding thing:

    I have no problem with it being called.
    I also have no problem if it was not called.

    However. Based on the flow of the game, the way they called everything, I would have preferred a no call. It kinda felt in the end of ďoh thatís what your going to callĒ after allowing a bunch of grabbing and holding. Iím not a fan of that at all.

    So I would have preferred to see them no call that and come up with why they didnít as opposed to call it.

    PROCESSING

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    2,563
    Quote Originally Posted by CasperX22 View Post
    It wasn't close at all. Either you're biased or you need your eyes checked and lack the depth perception to figure out where Cam was on the field. The camera is at an angle, but he literally winds up almost exactly where Mccaffrey was lined up which is over the rg. Regardless, it's not close bc he's wrapped at the apex of his drop and only made it there bc he was falling to his right and back and he is going down. Cam can't take that sack. Either get the ball out quick or you need to get out of the pocket in that situation.
    It was close. At worst case he got to where the tackle lined up if not further out. I would love to see what you would say if that happened to the Eagles in the same situation. Then we would see who the homer is. And of course you're comeback now will be, "No, I would feel the same if it happened to the Eagles, it was the right call, blah blah blah." But that's a load of **** and you would be just as pissed and complaining just as much if that's how your season ended.

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bethlehem
    Posts
    36,761
    Quote Originally Posted by RCarlson85 View Post
    It was close. At worst case he got to where the tackle lined up if not further out. I would love to see what you would say if that happened to the Eagles in the same situation. Then we would see who the homer is. And of course you're comeback now will be, "No, I would feel the same if it happened to the Eagles, it was the right call, blah blah blah." But that's a load of **** and you would be just as pissed and complaining just as much if that's how your season ended.
    Actually, if you follow his posts, he probably would've felt the same way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Blades View Post
    I don't consider Brand New indie. I consider them ****ing awesome and don't belong to a genre.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,916
    Quote Originally Posted by RCarlson85 View Post
    It was close. At worst case he got to where the tackle lined up if not further out. I would love to see what you would say if that happened to the Eagles in the same situation. Then we would see who the homer is. And of course you're comeback now will be, "No, I would feel the same if it happened to the Eagles, it was the right call, blah blah blah." But that's a load of **** and you would be just as pissed and complaining just as much if that's how your season ended.
    I'd say the exact same thing. Nick Foles can't hold on to the ball in that situation and essentially take a sack. That was all on Cam. No excuse to hold the ball in that situation. Even worse is that he allowed another 5-6 seconds to run off the clock after they wound the clock bc they werent lined up and ready to snap the ball. It sucks as a fan, but it was absolutely 100% the right call.

  5. #140
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    (null)
    Yup this is how I see it too.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by CasperX22 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Ya he started moving when defender started to grab then engage. He still threw the ball right about where the RT was (and is falling out that way). I am just saying it was at least close but that's what happens in football. I am not saying that one call defines the game but it was a close one that could have gone either way (if you believe refs "let them play" a little more late especially).
    It wasn't close at all. Either you're biased or you need your eyes checked and lack the depth perception to figure out where Cam was on the field. The camera is at an angle, but he literally winds up almost exactly where Mccaffrey was lined up which is over the rg. Regardless, it's not close bc he's wrapped at the apex of his drop and only made it there bc he was falling to his right and back and he is going down. Cam can't take that sack. Either get the ball out quick or you need to get out of the pocket in that situation.
    I dunno it seems many think it was close and you are taking the hardcore stance here. I won't comment on your eyes but biased seems possible on your end with this stance.

    He was close when he threw the ball, he had not released the ball at the rg.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 01-08-2018 at 02:25 PM.

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,916
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I dunno it seems many think it was close and you are taking the hardcore stance here. I won't comment on your eyes but biased seems possible on your end with this stance.

    He was close when he threw the ball, he had not released the ball at the rg.
    It wasn't close at all. When they show tape of the definition of intentional grounding that is exactly it. He's first contacted at the apex of his drop and desperately heaves it to the sideline as he is falling back and to his right. Try imagining it from the other side if Bread did the exact same thing and throws a gw td on the very next snap. You would be pissed right? Your frustration is directed at the wrong person. Direct it at Cam for making a poor decision and then compounding it by not having the offense lined up and ready for the next snap.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by CasperX22 View Post
    It wasn't close at all. When they show tape of the definition of intentional grounding that is exactly it. He's first contacted at the apex of his drop and desperately heaves it to the sideline as he is falling back and to his right. Try imagining it from the other side if Bread did the exact same thing and throws a gw td on the very next snap. You would be pissed right? Your frustration is directed at the wrong person. Direct it at Cam for making a poor decision and then compounding it by not having the offense lined up and ready for the next snap.
    I am not frustrated at all lol. I was simply saying that it was a close call and it seems you are clearly underselling it. To me it seems you just want to put as much blame on Cam as you can though so I think I see where the bias is coming from.

    Yes Cam could have moved earlier and made this whole thing moot. The next snap is irrelevant. None of that changes anything about if this was close or not.

  9. #144
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,175
    Again I never said it was the wrong call, just close

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    6,178
    IMO, I think it's clearly intentional grounding. The QB has to CLEARLY be outside the ORIGINAL tackle position for it to be ruled otherwise. The RT collapsed inside and gives the appearance that Cam maneuvered to the tackle position when he really didn't. If there's any grey area then this is almost always called IG because the player hasn't clearly established his position.

    That has always been my understanding of the rule.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    IMO, I think it's clearly intentional grounding. The QB has to CLEARLY be outside the ORIGINAL tackle position for it to be ruled otherwise. The RT collapsed inside and gives the appearance that Cam maneuvered to the tackle position when he really didn't. If there's any grey area then this is almost always called IG because the player hasn't clearly established his position.

    That has always been my understanding of the rule.
    If it were up to me I think they should go back to completely taking getting outside the tackle box out of the equation. Ball fails to reach the los or come within the general vicinity of an eligible receiver it's ig period.

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brampton, Ontario
    Posts
    28,200
    It was intentional grounding. Plus Im a Saints fan, so yes, it was definitely intentional grounding.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •