NFL 2012 [American Football Content]

[piebaldpython***]

Wouldn't be surprised if Goodell is ticked because a judge ruled that his suspensions of the Saints for Bounty-gate wasn't right. ahaha

[R_of_G]

The longer this goes on, the more the people that thought the "how much worse than the regular refs can they be?" jokes were clever will see just how much of a difference there really is.

I will not complain about the officiating costing the Bucs anything, because I've always argued that if you execute on every down, no single call should mean that much one way or the other, but there were some rather interesting interpretations of the rules at play yesterday.

[NWBasser]

Yippee.

The 'Hawks put a beating on the Cowboys yesterday. I missed the game while hiking with my son, but listened on the radio on the way home and it all sounded very good.

Nice to get Lynch up and going again.

[Tig***]

[R_of_G]

So apparently the Bucs are the villains of the NFL now. I guess after the Saints they had to keep it in the NFC South?

There seems to be much controversy over the Bucs' defensive players playing out the last down of the game despite knowing the Giants would take a knee and run out the clock.

I've heard a lot about the "unwritten" rule that you don't do that, and I've heard a lot of people question Coach Schiano's class. I couldn't disagree more strongly.

The game is 60 minutes long, period.

The rule book does not prohibit a defensive team from playing with 100% effort on 100% of the plays. The NFL made it clear yesterday there was no rules violation in what the Bucs did.

Whether or not it was likely, it was entirely possible that Eli and his center would mishandle the snap and by recovering the fumble the Bucs could conceivably have forced OT. Instead they should what, give up because two seconds is the same as zero seconds?

I don't buy into any "unwritten" rule that says a team has to concede victory to their opponent until the clock reads 0:00. It's the same nonsense that says you don't bunt when a pitcher has a no-hitter going as if its the opposing teams obligation to maintain the guy' no-hitter.

It would seem from the montage of ESPN "experts" that my opinion is certainly in the minority, but I would also add that the one ESPN analyst who seems to agree with me is Ron Jaworski, and given that I respect his analysis significantly more than Cris Carter, Keyshawn Johnson and Antonio Pierce combined, I'll take it. The rest of them are suggesting quitting is ok. It's not.

[piebaldpython***]

R_of_G..........I see your point and it is well-made with a good amount of validity to it.

That said.....In the interview that I saw......Schiano made NO mention of "hoping to miraculously dislodge the ball and recover" in his explanantion. He just said that the other coaches should know from his Rutgers days that he's no-holds barred in how his teams play. That's a crappy explanation in my book.

And the "unwritten" rules re the end of the football game and not bunting in the midst of a no-hitter are just not analagous.

But, he had every "right" to fire away on the last play of the game....no argument there...and the opposition should always "defend themselves at all times" (like in boxing). What Schiano did though......was a breach of ettiquette.....a "gentleman's agreement" between coaches as a way of avoiding any needless-senseless-idiotic injuries to players. The other teams have now been warned.

The Iggles have profitted from other teams (Giants most notably) of screwing up the last play of a game.

So, all the other teams will "kneel down" at the end of the game except when they play the Bucs.....notice has been served.

[R_of_G]

That said.....In the interview that I saw......Schiano made NO mention of "hoping to miraculously dislodge the ball and recover" in his explanantion. He just said that the other coaches should know from his Rutgers days that he's no-holds barred in how his teams play. That's a crappy explanation in my book.

Part of the problem is that they're airing a quick byte of Schiano's comments, so perhaps you didn't catch him saying the following:

"We crowd the ball -- it's like a sneak defense and you try to knock it loose. Watch Rutgers, they would know if they watched us that's what we did at the end of the game." - Greg Schiano [Source: http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/stor...t-eli-manning]

In those two sentences it's pretty clear he thought it possible for his defense to get the ball, and that he was referencing the four times his Rutgers' defenses successfully executed such a play under his reign as coach there.

But, he had every "right" to fire away on the last play of the game....no argument there...and the opposition should always "defend themselves at all times" (like in boxing). What Schiano did though......was a breach of ettiquette.....a "gentleman's agreement" between coaches as a way of avoiding any needless-senseless-idiotic injuries to players. The other teams have now been warned.

See, but that's the issue I have. If the Giants were up by more than a single score, yes, I'd be opposed to what the Bucs did because the clock prohibits them from completing a single play that would result in enough points to force overtime.

However, as long as a team still has a probability higher than 0.0% of winning a game, I have more of an issue with them being told to just give up than I do with them playing one more down at full speed. If Manning had been hurt, the only thing needless,senseless, or idiotic about such an injury is that his teammates decided to play one less play than the opponents.

[sunvalleylaw]

I have no problem with a "no retreat, no surrender" approach to football. It is after all, a combative sport. I like to see a clean, hard hitting game. All the way through.

[R_of_G]

Maybe I'm overcompensating because my former favorite team stopped playing hard 2 seconds into most games instead of with 2 seconds remaining?

[piebaldpython***]

OK.......I agree with you......that no matter how remote the chance, if you're within a TD, you have every right to try to force a fumble and maybe a penalty that allows for one more play. I guess it was the shock of seeing "something other than what is the norm" that threw me a bit.

[R_of_G]

OK.......I agree with you......that no matter how remote the chance, if you're within a TD, you have every right to try to force a fumble and maybe a penalty that allows for one more play. I guess it was the shock of seeing "something other than what is the norm" that threw me a bit.

The score differential is the key to my take on that play. If the Bucs trailed by more than 8, I'd likely still have appreciated the "play hard every play" mentality, but would also get the anger from the Giants because the game would have already been decided at that point.

[marnold***]

I think that people largely overreacted to the play, but it was still bush league. If they were so interested in playing 60 minutes, they shouldn't have stopped playing defense in the last quarter.

[R_of_G]

I think that people largely overreacted to the play, but it was still bush league. If they were so interested in playing 60 minutes, they shouldn't have stopped playing defense in the last quarter.

The difference of course being that the fourth quarter play, as poor as it was, wasn't the result of a lack of effort. Aquib Talib was certainly trying to cover Cruz and Nicks. He's just not good enough, and it showed. They didn't lose because they stopped trying.

[NWBasser]

Up next: The Seahawks versus Green Bay.

This will be very interesting to see. The Seahawks are built on a pound it and grind it offense versus the fast passing game of the Packers.

I don't see the 'Hawks hanging on in a passing shootout, especially with the mediocre receiving corp that they have. This will put a lot of pressure on the defense to shut down the Packers' passing attack.

It will be a contrast of the old grind-it-out paradigm versus the newer move-it-fast style of play.

What do you guys think will happen?

[R_of_G]

^^ Haven't seen enough of Seahawks 2012 to know how they'll stack up for four quarters with the Packers, but after that game we should have a clearer picture of how that team does against one of the more talented teams in their conference. Win or lose, I'll be paying attention to how much they're in the game.

[sunvalleylaw]

^^ Chuck Nnox football. Wait, that was the 80's.




I still think it will depend on if we have a competitive if not dominant defense that can keep the Seahawks in the game and out of a blowout, and a front line that will let Lynch and Wilson work. AND the receiving corps has to do their job. Heck, I'd even like to see a tight end that could open op the offensive options some.

[marnold***]

^^ Haven't seen enough of Seahawks 2012 to know how they'll stack up for four quarters with the Packers, but after that game we should have a clearer picture of how that team does against one of the more talented teams in their conference. Win or lose, I'll be paying attention to how much they're in the game.

I probably follow the Packers more closely than the average non-Packer fan. I have no idea how that game will turn out. None. Since it's in Seattle and Jennings will be out, I'd have to give the Seahawks the edge. Watch the Pack will win 35-0.

[Tig***]

Wow, the Vikings are suddenly hot!
I learned a new (to me) name today: Christian Ponder.

The Buc's offense is flaccid today, yet are still keeping the Cowboys within reach going into the 4th...

[R_of_G]

Wow, the Vikings are suddenly hot!
I learned a new (to me) name today: Christian Ponder.

Living in Florida, we get no shortage of FSU and UF games, so I saw plenty of Ponder in college. He was always very impressive. I figured he'd be a solid NFL guy, maybe not a superstar, but someone who could play in the league with some level of consistency.

The Buc's offense is flaccid today, yet are still keeping the Cowboys within reach going into the 4th...

Freeman can't seem to get it to Jackson or be happy getting it anywhere else today. His frustration is causing him to make mistakes. The running game is also not impressive today. I'd like to see them mix Blount in more. Maybe he's still more hurt than they're reporting.