NFL NEWS

Post by **Greyeagle** » Sun Nov 17 5:09 pm

Kelor wrote:Holy moly did that guy get his bell rung.

Serious question: If a defensive player lowers his helmet like that it's a penalty, isn't it?

Post by **Steve MN** » Sun Nov 17 5:09 pm

Kelor wrote:
Steve_MN wrote:
Kelor wrote:Play the game you weenies.

Those are some spooky clouds!!

Please see the pictures in the Weathermania thread with the damage path and the patio table lodged into the side of a building if you actually wonder why they delayed the game.

I wasn't being serious.

If that wasn't obvious, I apologize.

And if I seemed like I was snapping too much, I apologize as well. I'm a Weather Service certified weather spotter, along with doing some storm chasing and working on the emergency evacuation team at work because I know how sudden and devastating severe storms can be, so I can be a bit touchy on that subject.

dxmnkd316 · Post by **dxmnkd316** » Sun Nov 17 5:18 pm

That was a fun game to watch.

dxmnkd316 · Post by **dxmnkd316** » Sun Nov 17 6:00 pm

Post by **YoungEagle** » Sun Nov 17 6:39 pm

Captain Kickball wrote:

I would imagine that hurts..

Post by **Slap Shot** » Sun Nov 17 6:42 pm

My 9 y.o. asked why Seattle chose such ugly uniforms.

And someone needs to tell Tampa Bay that it's so easy to tank in the NFL anyone can do it. :mrgreen:

Post by **YoungEagle** » Sun Nov 17 6:52 pm

Slap Shot wrote:My 9 y.o. asked why Seattle chose such ugly uniforms.

And someone needs to tell Tampa Bay that it's so easy to tank in the NFL anyone can do it.

But honestly its more fun to watch Atlanta free fall into the toilet.

Post by **trixR4kids** » Sun Nov 17 7:18 pm

ATL is just better at tanking :lol:

Post by **Orion** » Mon Nov 18 9:22 pm

http://images.ftw.usatoday.com/wp-conte ... rSloMo.gif

Turtle!

Post by **gopherguy13** » Mon Nov 18 10:09 pm

Orion wrote:http://images.ftw.usatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/DrewBreesNeckSuperSloMo.gif

Turtle!

Jesus, looks like a crash test dummy video...

Post by **gopherguy13** » Mon Nov 18 10:44 pm

I'm sure it's just a persona he puts up to the media, but man Belichek looks like a miserable human being to be around :lol:

Post by **gopher6** » Tue Nov 19 6:10 am

last nights end of the game was so pathetic, they pick up the flag, no penalty? :censored:

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/i ... nding-play

Post by **trixR4kids** » Tue Nov 19 7:42 am

Was there any clear foul on the play? I never saw a replay of it or anything but it looked like there was no WR even in the vicinity to catch it.

Post by **george** » Tue Nov 19 7:47 am

trixR4kids wrote:Was there any clear foul on the play? I never saw a replay of it or anything but it looked like there was no WR even in the vicinity to catch it.

But the TE was and Gronk was being held. I'm just not sure the ball was close to catchable by Gronk regardless.

Post by **trixR4kids** » Tue Nov 19 7:53 am

Gotcha. Like I said I only saw it once in real time so I have no real opinion either way.

Post by **gopherguy13** » Tue Nov 19 8:19 am

I think there should have been a penalty. The ball landed like 3 or 4 yards in front of Gronk, and he was not given a fair chance to try and go get it because he was being bear hugged.

Post by **JWG** » Tue Nov 19 10:28 am

That ball was a pick no matter what. Even if he hadn't been "held" he'd of had to come back (opposite his momentum) 2-3 yards and somehow get in front of the 2nd defender who the ball hit square in the chest.

The problem I have is, I don't think it deserved a 1st and goal from the 1 opportunity for NE, nor do I think it was catchable. But, yes, I do see where it was holding in the end zone.

Post by **trixR4kids** » Tue Nov 19 10:36 am

They probably could've just called the hold, moved the ball 5 yards up and given the Pats one last shot. The penalty for defensive holding is different from PI.

Post by **JWG** » Tue Nov 19 10:37 am

Can you call holding more than 5 yards down field after the ball is thrown? I think the only option was PI, wasn't it?

Post by **trixR4kids** » Tue Nov 19 10:41 am

You could be right about that. I just know there's a difference for defensive holding and PI as far as penalty assessed.

Post by **Alby22** » Tue Nov 19 10:47 am

http://instagram.com/p/g4hEc-zeit/. Tough to say he couldn't adjust to the ball when he was being pushed back and tackled as the ball was still 10 yards from him. The defensive player undercut and had a play on the interception but to pick up the flag there is just horrible officiating. Gronk wasn't given a chance to make a play on the ball.

Post by **rowshkex** » Thu Nov 21 10:12 pm

I am severely confused as to why the Falcons attempted a field goal in that situation... Even if they made it, they'd need an onside kick or quick stop and another score... If they missed, they would still need to score... :confused2:

dxmnkd316 · Post by **dxmnkd316** » Thu Nov 21 10:13 pm

How did you get to watch?

Post by **rowshkex** » Thu Nov 21 10:14 pm

Captain Kickball wrote:How did you get to watch?

Just Sportsline Gametracker.

dxmnkd316 · Post by **dxmnkd316** » Thu Nov 21 10:15 pm

Don't you have some flash cards to memorize?

Post by **rowshkex** » Thu Nov 21 10:27 pm

Captain Kickball wrote:Don't you have some flash cards to memorize?

Post by **Bushwood Gopher** » Thu Nov 21 10:27 pm

rowshkex wrote:I am severely confused as to why the Falcons attempted a field goal in that situation... Even if they made it, they'd need an onside kick or quick stop and another score... If they missed, they would still need to score...

They had 3 timeouts left and the two minute warning yet. Presumably they figured the odds of them making a fg and then either stopping New Orleans OR recovering an onside kick was a higher probability than converting a 4th and 15. I don't think it was crazy, but I probably would've gone for it there myself.

The bigger headscratcher was why New Orleans didn't run into the line 3 times at the end of the game so that Atlanta never could've gotten the ball back. Instead they kneel twice, and then Brees runs backwards for 11 yards on 4th down which actually put Atlanta at the 40 yard line. There was no reason Atlanta should've gotten the ball back at the end of the game.

Post by **rowshkex** » Thu Nov 21 10:30 pm

Bushwood Gopher wrote:
rowshkex wrote:I am severely confused as to why the Falcons attempted a field goal in that situation... Even if they made it, they'd need an onside kick or quick stop and another score... If they missed, they would still need to score...

They had 3 timeouts left and the two minute warning yet. Presumably they figured the odds of them making a fg and then either stopping New Orleans OR recovering an onside kick was a higher probability than converting a 4th and 15. I don't think it was crazy, but I probably would've gone for it there myself.

I don't buy it--that makes absolutely no sense. They deserved to lose that game for that decision.

Post by **The Rube** » Thu Nov 21 10:34 pm

rowshkex wrote:
Bushwood Gopher wrote:
rowshkex wrote:I am severely confused as to why the Falcons attempted a field goal in that situation... Even if they made it, they'd need an onside kick or quick stop and another score... If they missed, they would still need to score...

They had 3 timeouts left and the two minute warning yet. Presumably they figured the odds of them making a fg and then either stopping New Orleans OR recovering an onside kick was a higher probability than converting a 4th and 15. I don't think it was crazy, but I probably would've gone for it there myself.

I don't buy it--that makes absolutely no sense. They deserved to lose that game for that decision.

It makes sense, it's a matter of how confident you are in your defense vs your offense. In this situation, you've basically held NO in check (only 17 points given up). So, kick the toots, stop them, and you only have to get to about the 35 yard line for a GWFG.

Post by **Hobey Baker** » Sat Nov 23 10:33 am

NFL ump susspend for one game for making a "profane and derogtory statement"

dxmnkd316 · Post by **dxmnkd316** » Sun Nov 24 7:59 pm

The Pats are on pace for 24 turnovers this game.

Post by **Chris83** » Sun Nov 24 8:07 pm

Roughriders up 31-6 on the Ti-Cats in the third quarter of the Grey Cup.

Oops, sorry...should have posted this in the "CFL News" thread. :lol:

Post by **gobig6** » Sun Nov 24 10:06 pm

Anyone else think this Denver-NE game started to turn over an idiotic and selfish play by Cromartie? At the end of the first half the hail mary that was well short of the end zone he dove to try to intercept it and hurt himself in the process. There was no need at all to try that except to pad the stats. Now the Denver secondary can't stop anything.

dxmnkd316 · Post by **dxmnkd316** » Sun Nov 24 11:00 pm

Wow. That was PI.

Post by **gopherguy13** » Sun Nov 24 11:12 pm

2 ties in one week in the NFL?! Yes, please!

Post by **gopherguy13** » Sun Nov 24 11:16 pm

gopherguy13 wrote:2 ties in one week in the NFL?! Yes, please!

Tony Carter! You ruined it!!! :chainsaw:

Post by **trixR4kids** » Sun Nov 24 11:16 pm

Nope, that idiot touched the ball and now we get to hear the "Brady is clutch Peyton isn't" narrative again.

dxmnkd316 · Post by **dxmnkd316** » Sun Nov 24 11:20 pm

I have to agree with al and whatshisface. That wasn't on carter, that's on Welker. I didn't hear "Peter" until far too late for carter to get out of there.

Post by **trixR4kids** » Sun Nov 24 11:21 pm

Yeah why not just go catch it? Dumb.

Post by **Bushwood Gopher** » Sun Nov 24 11:27 pm

trixR4kids wrote:Nope, that idiot touched the ball and now we get to hear the "Brady is clutch Peyton isn't" narrative again.

Nah, the narrative is that nobody can overcome the inherent advantage there is in playing at Foxboro.

Post by **Hammy** » Sun Nov 24 11:28 pm

Captain Kickball wrote:I have to agree with al and whatshisface. That wasn't on carter, that's on Welker. I didn't hear "Peter" until far too late for carter to get out of there.

What a sucky way to end a game like that. I wanted one of those QBs to earn the win with a drive. Lame!

I agree that Welker is at fault there. He needs to get off his ass and run to that ball and catch it. Or at a minimum, run up there and be screaming sooner about clearing the way.

Post by **MinnesotaNorthStar** » Sun Nov 24 11:30 pm

Yep. Welker shouldn't have let that ball touch the ground. But, he's Wes Welker, so they blame will land on Tony Carter...

Post by **rowshkex** » Sun Nov 24 11:48 pm

Captain Kickball wrote:I have to agree with al and whatshisface. That wasn't on carter, that's on Welker. I didn't hear "Peter" until far too late for carter to get out of there.

Actually, it's totally on Manning there. He didn't clutch/hustle/grit his team to victory, particularly on the kickoff return.

Post by **trixR4kids** » Sun Nov 24 11:51 pm

Bushwood Gopher wrote:
trixR4kids wrote:Nope, that idiot touched the ball and now we get to hear the "Brady is clutch Peyton isn't" narrative again.

Nah, the narrative is that nobody can overcome the inherent advantage there is in playing at Foxboro.

Hard to disagree with that.

Post by **Bushwood Gopher** » Mon Nov 25 12:22 am

trixR4kids wrote:
Bushwood Gopher wrote:
trixR4kids wrote:Nope, that idiot touched the ball and now we get to hear the "Brady is clutch Peyton isn't" narrative again.

Nah, the narrative is that nobody can overcome the inherent advantage there is in playing at Foxboro.

Hard to disagree with that.

New England's defense is better.
Manning has no weapons.
Belichick is a better coach than Del Rio.
New England has better fans.
The popcorn vendors get up and down the aisles quicker at Foxboro.
Did I miss anything?

Post by **Snowcool08** » Mon Nov 25 12:47 am

rowshkex wrote:
Captain Kickball wrote:I have to agree with al and whatshisface. That wasn't on carter, that's on Welker. I didn't hear "Peter" until far too late for carter to get out of there.

Actually, it's totally on Manning there. He didn't clutch/hustle/grit his team to victory, particularly on the kickoff return.

I'm sure there are some posters here who will find a way to blame it on Ponder.

Post by **MATT** » Mon Nov 25 4:05 am

Post by **trixR4kids** » Mon Nov 25 9:32 am

Bushwood Gopher wrote:
trixR4kids wrote:
Bushwood Gopher wrote:
trixR4kids wrote:Nope, that idiot touched the ball and now we get to hear the "Brady is clutch Peyton isn't" narrative again.

Nah, the narrative is that nobody can overcome the inherent advantage there is in playing at Foxboro.

Hard to disagree with that.

New England's defense is better.
Manning has no weapons.
Belichick is a better coach than Del Rio.
New England has better fans.
The popcorn vendors get up and down the aisles quicker at Foxboro.
Did I miss anything?

Brady outclutched Manning to victory with grit factor.

MATT wrote:

Post by **Beauner** » Mon Nov 25 9:43 am

Its pretty obvious that Carter was so distracted by Tom Brady's man-beauty that he forgot to avoid the ball.
Tom Brady >>>> Peyton Manning.
That video right there is all the proof you'll ever need.

Post by **Slap Shot** » Mon Nov 25 12:12 pm

trixR4kids wrote:Nope, that idiot touched the ball and now we get to hear the "Brady is clutch Peyton isn't" narrative again.

Only because it's true. :mrgreen:

AND WILL SOMEONE TELL TB AND JAX THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO TANK!!

Post by **trixR4kids** » Mon Nov 25 12:59 pm

TOTALLY BRO!

Post by **Slap Shot** » Mon Nov 25 1:25 pm

The beach is that way, chief.

Post by **gopherguy13** » Tue Nov 26 8:48 am

How the hell did Oakland end up playing on Thanksgiving? :bored:

Post by **Viking** » Tue Nov 26 8:57 am

gopherguy13 wrote:How the hell did Oakland end up playing on Thanksgiving?

All teams are playing a Thursday game this year.

Post by **gopherguy13** » Tue Nov 26 9:05 am

Viking wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:How the hell did Oakland end up playing on Thanksgiving?

All teams are playing a Thursday game this year.

Yeah, but you'd think they could find a better matchup than Dallas-Oakland for the one Thursday of the year when everyone will be watching.

Post by **trixR4kids** » Tue Nov 26 9:15 am

If I had to guess they know how the ratings work better than we do. The Det v Packer game everyone will be watching but the later games... guessing they don't get as many people tuning in.

Post by **gopherguy13** » Tue Nov 26 9:20 am

trixR4kids wrote:If I had to guess they know how the ratings work better than we do. The Det v Packer game everyone will be watching but the later games... guessing they don't get as many people tuning in.

I'm not even talking from a ratings standpoint, I just mean from an interesting football standpoint. I imagine everyone who doesn't live in the California area of the country see that the Raiders are playing and have the same reaction as me. yawn.

It's football on Thanksgiving so we're obviously gonna watch it, but throw us a bone, NFL!

Post by **rowshkex** » Tue Nov 26 9:35 am

gopherguy13 wrote:
trixR4kids wrote:If I had to guess they know how the ratings work better than we do. The Det v Packer game everyone will be watching but the later games... guessing they don't get as many people tuning in.

I'm not even talking from a ratings standpoint, I just mean from an interesting football standpoint. I imagine everyone who doesn't live in the California area of the country see that the Raiders are playing and have the same reaction as me. yawn.

It's football on Thanksgiving so we're obviously gonna watch it, but throw us a bone, NFL!

Maybe that's the point--they know we don't want to watch it but will anyway. I mean, to be fair, they don't care about us at all--they care about our wallets.

Post by **trixR4kids** » Tue Nov 26 9:41 am

Exactly. The thought is probably something along the lines of "everyone will be watching, Dallas already has one of the largest fanbases, we'll save some premier matchups for Sunday".

Post by **Bushwood Gopher** » Tue Nov 26 1:30 pm

rowshkex wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:
trixR4kids wrote:If I had to guess they know how the ratings work better than we do. The Det v Packer game everyone will be watching but the later games... guessing they don't get as many people tuning in.

I'm not even talking from a ratings standpoint, I just mean from an interesting football standpoint. I imagine everyone who doesn't live in the California area of the country see that the Raiders are playing and have the same reaction as me. yawn.

It's football on Thanksgiving so we're obviously gonna watch it, but throw us a bone, NFL!

Maybe that's the point--they know we don't want to watch it but will anyway. I mean, to be fair, they don't care about us at all--they care about our wallets.

Of course they care about our wallets. If you're a fan you should delight that they do. It results in flex scheduling to show the best games of the year as the season unfolds, and also games like Denver/New England in prime time that are guaranteed to be good when schedules are set at the start of the year.

Post by **rowshkex** » Tue Nov 26 6:43 pm

Bushwood Gopher wrote:
rowshkex wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:
trixR4kids wrote:If I had to guess they know how the ratings work better than we do. The Det v Packer game everyone will be watching but the later games... guessing they don't get as many people tuning in.

I'm not even talking from a ratings standpoint, I just mean from an interesting football standpoint. I imagine everyone who doesn't live in the California area of the country see that the Raiders are playing and have the same reaction as me. yawn.

It's football on Thanksgiving so we're obviously gonna watch it, but throw us a bone, NFL!

Maybe that's the point--they know we don't want to watch it but will anyway. I mean, to be fair, they don't care about us at all--they care about our wallets.

Of course they care about our wallets. If you're a fan you should delight that they do. It results in flex scheduling to show the best games of the year as the season unfolds, and also games like Denver/New England in prime time that are guaranteed to be good when schedules are set at the start of the year.

You're missing the original point. The original point was that yes, they want us to watch... But they will always choose our wallets over what we want as fans, hence my point about the Raiders game. They will do as little as possible (for us) in order to make as much money as they can. Thus, they will put the Raiders on Thanksgiving because they KNOW people will watch and then they can STILL put another team on a great matchup on a non-holiday.

To be fair, I don't have an idea how much scheduling the Raiders on Thanksgiving REALLY takes into account money, but my guess is it does. :mrgreen:

Post by **Snowcool08** » Tue Nov 26 9:16 pm

They need to have an AFC team on Thanksgiving every year so CBS can broadcast a game. It switches between Detroit and Dallas hosting the AFC team. It gets really tough when these teams only host 2 AFC teams a year. They're stuck with this setup until they decide to not have Dallas and Detroit host it every year.

What I really don't like is how Detroit hosts Green Bay every other year. Spread it around a bit because it's almost like having 3 permanent Thanksgiving teams.

Post by **Chris83** » Wed Nov 27 9:57 am

Snowcool08 wrote:They need to have an AFC team on Thanksgiving every year so CBS can broadcast a game. It switches between Detroit and Dallas hosting the AFC team. It gets really tough when these teams only host 2 AFC teams a year. They're stuck with this setup until they decide to not have Dallas and Detroit host it every year.

What I really don't like is how Detroit hosts Green Bay every other year. Spread it around a bit because it's almost like having 3 permanent Thanksgiving teams.

Well, Detroit has been hosting a Thanksgiving game pretty much since the 30's and EVERY year since 1945, so that will never change. Cowboys since 1966, so that will never change either. They DO need to do a better job of mixing up the opponents more.

Post by **Bigbeer** » Thu Nov 28 12:19 pm

Man do both of these teams stink.

Post by **The Rube** » Thu Nov 28 12:25 pm

Bigbeer wrote:Man do both of these teams stink.

This game is pretty brutal. The other games don't get me excited, either. Some really bad teams are playing today.

Post by **Bigbeer** » Thu Nov 28 12:29 pm

The only things worse than Green Bay's offense without Aaron Rodgers are their defense and Rodgers' mustache.

Post by **bearpaw28** » Thu Nov 28 2:44 pm

Stick a fork in the Packer play-off hopes. Carl..Gerschmidt on will be closing down a bar tonight

Post by **Slap Shot** » Sun Dec 01 3:53 pm

WHY ISN'T JACKSONVILLE TANKING? ?

:mrgreen:

Post by **Bigbeer** » Sun Dec 01 5:50 pm

A certain former Gopher is having a decent game.

Post by **The Rube** » Sun Dec 01 5:51 pm

Bigbeer wrote:A certain former Gopher is having a decent game.

KC really needs to cover the white guy. Not that one, the slow one. :wink:

Post by **trixR4kids** » Sun Dec 01 5:52 pm

Yeah Decker's having a hell of a day for fantasy.

Post by **davescharf** » Sun Dec 01 5:57 pm

Bigbeer wrote:A certain former Gopher is having a decent game.

That former Gopher is going to end my fantasy football season it looks like.

dxmnkd316 · Post by **dxmnkd316** » Sun Dec 01 5:57 pm

ohmygodohmygodkneesarenotsupposedtobendthatway!!!

Post by **gopherguy13** » Sun Dec 01 6:17 pm

trixR4kids wrote:Yeah Decker's having a hell of a day for fantasy.

46.6 points for me so far :dance:

Post by **The Rube** » Sun Dec 01 6:19 pm

And the Bills just went Bills on the bit. In FG range, tie game....fumble. *sigh*