1of10Charnatives

Yes but fan bases of small media markets not named Green Bay are right. And you're missing or misinterpreting my point about QB officiating: Yes the NFL is protecting SOME QB's hard. Any argument that the NFL was protecting Cam Newton hard is absurd on it's face. They blatantly allowed him to be headhunted and Ed Hochuli (fug you Ed) told him he wasn't old enough to get that call. The discrepancy between the lattitude defenders are given when going after Newton vs say Brady or Rogers was and is beyond absurd. If the NFL will allow an obvious and blatant level of discrepancy between the way some QB's are officiated vs others, the notion their crews are biased in other areas cannot be simply dismissed out of hand.

I understand where you are coming from but I could quite easily argue that DJ had possession and control when he caught it while going out of bounds and any ruling by the refs to the contrary is arbitrary subjectivity. Who is to say he didn't make a "football move" while going out of bounds since in your own words the definition includes "anything really" It's a garbage rule with vague standards and arbitrary and imo biased enforcement. I don't see how you can in one sentence claim that the definition of a "football move" includes anything, and then claim he didn't make one during the entire course of catching that ball. I'm not so much taking issue with you, as with the absurdity of the rule itself. And if you think NFL refs are never biased, please. Any objective study of the way star elite QB's are officiated vs all others has to bend over backwards not to see the glaring discrepancies in officiating for things like roughing the passer. If there is bias there, it's hard to argue there isn't or can't be bias elsewhere.

Yeah I had a good friend growing up who otherwise knew more about the game than I did, but just had unreasonable expectations about performance, particularly at certain positions like RB and MLB. Any MLB short of HOF level was garbage and any RB who couldn't move the pile while also running laps around it and was never injured was also worthless. It was exasperating.

Disagree. I watched that play multiple times and never saw any hint he was losing control before he hit the ground. Gathering the ball to his body sure, losing control, no. A player is perfectly allowed to gather the ball to his body as part of maintaining control. If he is not, the rule is absurd in the extreme.

BINGO. THIS.

If this is the case, I don't honestly remember it ever being invoked when watching other games. I have seen plenty of guys lose the ball on the way down, but I could swear I've seen plenty of guys catch TD passes as they go out of bounds, fall out of bounds, ball pops lose AFTER they hit the ground, and it's still considered a TD. Honest question: When a receiver catches the ball in the endzone, not going out of bounds, exactly how long must he maintain possession of the ball before it is a TD? Til both feet are down right? My understanding has always been this is immediately a TD and whatever happens afterwards is irrelevant. A defensive player cannot knock the ball loose after the fact. And this whole notion of a "football move" I've heard this term batted around for years without anyone ever being able to satisfactorily describe it. It sounds like a load of hogwash the league has concocted to give their officials room to call things inconsistently and hide behind a vaguely defined term. It sounds very much like what you are describing is one rule for what amounts to a TD when a player is in the endzone not going out of bounds, and a different standard for when he is.

It works for a game or two. It will never work for half a season. Teams will start doing crazy poo like putting 9 in the box and daring Darnold to throw over them. The NFL compensates against anything unbalanced that works short term very very quickly.

You're one of those guys for whom anything short of All Pro level performance is garbage aren't you? Hubbard is fine. He's not CMC but he doesn't need to be, and for a rookie running against defenses that are as unthreatened by his team's passing game as our opponents obviously are, he's doing a helluva job.

Watched a hundred similar TD catches over a lifetime of watching football. Don't ever recall a player making a catch like that being ruled incomplete when he still had the ball as he hits the ground. I watched the replay multiple times. Both feet are clearly inbounds and there is no clear evidence he does not have control at any point before he hits the ground. Never seen that be ruled an incompletion. You say you must maintain possesion, but if you are on the ground out of bounds and had possession all the way down, exactly how @#%$ing long are you expected to lay there to prove you've "maintained possession"? When the play happens inbounds the moment the ball crosses the goal line in the possession of an offensive player it is a TD and anything afterwards is irrelevant. You cannot review the replay and say there is definitive evidence DJ did not have control of the ball before he hit the ground. Once he hits the ground it should be a TD, or you have an arbitrary and highly subjective rule. I maintain it was a highly irregular initial ruling that flies in the face of anything I can recall having seen, and that upholding the call upon review was absurd.

Agree with you about Sam and Robby. Those were both perfectly legit hits. Disagree about the TD catch. That call was garbage.

In my entire history of watching football, I don't ever recall a similar play with a player going out of bounds and seeming to maintain control of the ball til he gets to the ground being initially rulled incomplete. Never. Not once. They always call it a catch and then review it to see if it really was. After watching the replay, it's even less defensible. Flat out bad call. Tell yourself whatever you want. I watched it multiple times. The initial call was completely inconsistent with all the football officiating I've ever seen, and the replay far from vindicated the officials call.

Where do people get these notions other teams will do flat out retarded trades with us? I mean I know we are talking about the Lions, but even the Lions aren't going to give up their newly minted franchise LT after his rookie year for a vet non #1 CB and a mid tier player pick? If you were CMC, would you trade Olivia Culpo for a fairly cute stripper who is good at dancing but only so so in the sack and a Hooters waitress who can bartend?

Given how threadbare our CB situation is at present I don't see how anyone could disagree with you.

Because the fine career keeps getting interupted with injuries that keep him out substantial portions of a season. Given that WR's take less pounding than RB's, it is not an inherently bad idea. Also take a look at the avg career length for RB's vs WR's and then think about how long you'd like that fine career to last.

*Looks at watch* Since the Sphinx had a nose? Since the tower in Pisa was straight? Since The Great Sam Mills™ wore leather helmets as a rookie?

They don't. We aren't.

I vote yay. Problem is my vote means nothing. Your vote means nothing. Rhule's vote means something. Brady's vote means something. CMC's vote probably is worth 51% by itself, and I get the impression he's not into the idea. But just on the merits of the idea, yeah I agree with you.

I am slightly better than you as an Oline consultant for two reasons: One, I am slightly cheaper. Two, my business card has the words Don't Panic in large friendly embossed letters on it.

Well I'm glad you asked. Suppose you have a guy that really sucks at Left Guard, but he goes down with an injury. If you have a guy that can suck at BOTH Left Guard and Right Guard, then you just plug that guy in and you're good to go. But if the replacement can only suck at Right Guard, well, now you've got problems.

I do not need PFF to tell me our line play was beyond horribad. I also do not need them to tell me that touchdowns are good and penalties are bad. Some things are self evident.

I mean...it's the not worst point ever made by the OP, that's for sure. But while I am also leery of contract year superstars, I think Dante is the closest thing to a sure thing going forward for this secondary. Horn has only 3 games, Henderson and Gilmore do come with question marks, so if some team was gonna offer me a pro bowl caliber guard in his prime for Dante, would I bite? Probably. Is that likely to happen? Not really.

I understand the theory of drafting best overall player, and overall I mostly agree with it BUT if followed with no accounting for the ease vs difficulty of filling different positions AND other factors like, oh I don't know, protecting your first year QB that you're essentially trying out to see if he's as bad as his 3 years with the Jets or if it was mostly the Jets, I'd say that's not exactly optimal either. Continuing to draft quality WR's that can be had a dime a dozen while knowing full well quality OL are so scarce no team is gonna let go of them without a harsh price hasn't worked out well for us either.

This is likely what happened to me.

F that noise. I know this might be hard to believe, but there is actually a place somewhere between being a drunk asshole with a rapsheet and born to lose tattooed on his forehead and being some wine and cheese prick who doesn't get football at all and is there for the social scene. It's called being a reasonable person. I can support my team AND be louder than you on 3rd down without advocating for asshattery.

I'll grant Fitterer that quality OL to be had via FA or trade are in short supply, however.... Since you're not brand new to the league, scarcity in the market of quality OL to be had from other teams seems like the sort of thing you should ALREADY have known prior to the draft, and it should have made drafting OL a much higher priority. Seviceable to good WR's are a dime a dozen in the NFL, even crap teams have a couple of good ones, but FItt gets no pass from me for failing to take this into account when drafting Marshall. I made a post just after the draft that caught a lot of flack which pointed out all of the highly graded OL who were available when we drafted Marshall. Being a good GM isn't just making tons of deals and shrugging your shoulders when the crucial position group can't be had that way. It's knowing you won't be able to fix that part of your team via trades and FA and drafting accordingly. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and right now I think we all know what this pudding tastes like.