2013-2014 NFL thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Alfndrate**

Alpharius wrote:
You should a bit sensitive on that subject - almost like you know that hit was shady...

What Ward's hit on Gronk? No I'm sensitive about the fact that for 4 straight quarters the Browns embarrassed the Patriots at home. If you weren't watching the game, and I had said, "So one of the teams just scored a FG near the end of the third quarter." You'd assume I was talking about the Browns right? And then calls started going against the Browns, calls that shouldn't have been called. When practically the entire national media scene is saying Ward's and Poyer's hits were clean and McFadden didn't commit pass interference, you can't help but wonder what zebra striped divine intervention helped the Patriots win. The Browns should be 5-8 and the Pats should be 9-4

**Chancetragedy**

Your team deserved to lose because they couldn't close out the patriotswith a 17 point lead in the 3rd. and your idiot 3rd string special teams running back couldn't corral an onsides kick.

Your team benefitted from more than 1 call in their favor yesterday so take off your rose colored glasses and try and be reasonable here. I'm sure your ticked off your team has talent but still sucks. That's really no excuse for this tantrum.

And I'm hoping the patriots are cheaters crap is a joke because I thought you guys we're more knowledgable than that.

**Alpharius**

"Should be"?

In some Alternate Universe maybe - but not in this one.

In the end, it won't really matter.

The Browns aren't making the playoffs - just like they shouldn't be.

And the Pats are either 1 and done or will lose before getting out of the AFC - just like they should be doing.

**Redbeard**

Alpharius wrote:
You should a bit sensitive on that subject - almost like you know that hit was shady...

Seriously? Every article I've read about it (and if you want to pick just one, Barnwell on Grantland covers this hit in some detail), says that it's a completely legal hit. In fact, here's Barnwell's take:

First, to be clear: Ward's hit was not dirty. In fact, the problem with the hit was that it was the only real option he had to make a clean hit whatsoever. The NFL has successfully legislated out of the game the hit up high during plays up the seam, and both quarterbacks and offensive coordinators know that. The pass up the seam to an athletic tight end or a bigger wide receiver is a more popular play than it has ever been before because of that; teams don't worry about the consequences of laying out their receiver because they know defenders have been told repeatedly to avoid going high. Ward's timing in making a play on the ball is sound; if he were to go high to try to jar the ball loose, he would have been given a personal foul penalty and fined by the league. If he tries to make an arm tackle, Gronkowski runs right by him. Ward's only way to make a play there is to try to go low with his tackle.

In this case, Gronkowski is vulnerable and laid out, but it's by a shot to his legs that Gronk can't protect himself from, not by the traditional shot to the head. I don't know how you tell Ward that he can't hit Gronkowski high or low in that situation without basically suggesting that Gronkowski is allowed to waltz into the end zone for a touchdown anytime he catches a seam route. Ward had no intent to injure Gronkowski on the play, and yet the only hit he could really get off was a very dangerous one. There's no simple solution to that quandary, just the reality that it's impossible to make professional football with 240-pound athletes a safe game.

**Chancetragedy**

Just because the hit was legal doesn't mean it wasn't dirty.

**Alfndrate**

Chancetragedy wrote:
Don't be such a baby alf. Your team deserved to lose because they couldn't close out the patriots and your idiot 3rd string special teams running back couldn't corral an onsides kick.

And I addressed that, Fozzy should be practicing that play until he can do it in his sleep. It was a great kick by the Pats kicker and a terrible pickup by Fozzy, but without that crappy call against Poyer, the Patriots would have been starting on their 40 yard line instead of the Browns 40 yard line.

Your team benefitted from more than 1 call in their favor yesterday so take off your rose colored glasses and try and be reasonable here. I'm sure your ticked off your team has talent but still sucks. That's really no excuse for this tantrum.

Which ones, because I honestly have been trying to find the penalty breakdown of the game because I know there were a few that were in our favor (like the one Intentional Grounding penalty on Brady). Sadly, none of them had the impact as those two did at the end of the game.

And I'm hoping the patriots are cheaters crap is a joke because I thought you guys were more knowledgeable than that.

I would have rather have seen the Browns blown out by the Patriots at least then I'd feel better because my team took a dump on the field and earned that loss instead of having the Patriots be given the win.

Also, I too enjoy having my character being personally attacked, thanks for calling me a baby dude.

With that, I'm out.

**Redbeard**

Chancetragedy wrote:
Just because the hit was legal doesn't mean it wasn't dirty.

Wow, such insight. So, how was he supposed to prevent the touchdown without making an illegal hit to the head?

**Alpharius**

I can't believe you're taking that tack Red - shameful!

**Redbeard**

Alpharius wrote:
I can't believe you're taking that tack Red - shameful!

What tack? I can't believe you're questioning my tack, rather than addressing the issue.

Seriously - if you believe the play was dirty, look at it again, even in slow motion, and tell me how Ward is supposed to stop Gronk in stride, being 65 pounds lighter, without drawing a flag for an illegal high hit. I like Gronk, and I like the Patriots, but I cannot see how anyone would say this hit was dirty. The defender has a right to make a play, and when you take away the high hit, that play has to be made low.

**Alpharius**

Straight on at that speed at the waist/chest instead of right at his knee?

It isn't that hard to see that.

Eliminating "High hits" don't preclude safer tackles than knee blasters.

EDIT - spellin'

**Redbeard**

Alpharius wrote:
Straight on at that speed at the waist/chest instead of right at his knee?

It isn't that hard to see that.

Eliminating "High hits" don't preclude safer tackles than knee blasters.

EDIT - spellin'

Really? Have you ever tackled someone - someone that much bigger than you with a lot more forward momentum? You hit high to hit above the center of mass. You hit low to hit below the center of mass. If you hit the center of mass, you bounce off, especially when you're giving up that much weight.

**Chancetragedy**

@alf I edited the baby comment out pretty quickly I was definately out of line with that one sorry dude. Sincerely.

Also I can think of a major call the browns benefitted from and that was the first play if the game when Hightower stripped little but they claimed the play was dead even though you clearly heard the whistle after the ball was out on the replay.

@redbeard he could have EASILY tackled him 6-8" higher around the thighs and wrapped the legs instead of launching at his knees. Just because Gronk is big doesn't excuse launching at his knees. That's a bad excuse. Is tj ward a dirty player for that hit? Nope, was he intentionally being dirty with that hit? Idk probably not. But I'm not buying this crap of "we can't hit high so well go for the knees" stuff. And I'll be the first to admit I'm totally biased about it because our SB chances have taken hit after hit due to injuries to our star players. And it's to a frustration point that you guys should understand rooting for the browns.

**Redbeard**

6" higher? Wow, now you're really grasping at straws. At the speeds these guys are moving, with each of them making their moves unaware of exactly where the other's move will take them?

No, sorry, I'm not buying it. I get that you're disappointed, and I feel bad for Gronk, who I like. But, I've seen far too many plays where the defender has tried to avoid hitting a guy in the head, only to see the other guy duck low, or start to slide, and they end up hitting him in the head anyway. Stuff happens at these speeds, and your choices aren't quite as precise as making the hit six inches higher or lower. The NFL rules that you can't hit a guy high, so you go low. It's a completely legal play, a defender trying to stop a much larger, faster opponent. It's unfortunate that it ended up hurting the guy, but I think it's unfair to say that Ward was trying to hurt Gronk, or that the play was cheap, dirty, or whatever.

Anyway, I'm done posting about it. I haven't seen a single article on this that disagrees with what I'm saying, pretty much the entire sports media is in agreement, and it's just a few of you Bostonians with a vested intrest that think otherwise. If anyone is to blame, it's the NFL's "safety" rules and their emphasis on protecting heads over knees.

**Chancetragedy**

Which is why on the last page I said I'm blaming the nfl ;p. We don't see eye to eye and that's fine. I'm not trying to change anyone's point of view. Just expressng my useless opinion on a message board.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Redbeard wrote:

Really? Have you ever tackled someone - someone that much bigger than you with a lot more forward momentum? You hit high to hit above the center of mass. You hit low to hit below the center of mass. If you hit the center of mass, you bounce off, especially when you're giving up that much weight.

I have. And in rugby no less. Head/body position + technique trump size every day of the week. Granted, the point of a tackle in rugby is a little bit different than football, but my point is still the same. Oh, and I didn't have the "luxury" of those injury producing plastic girly things the guys in the NFL wear

I didn't watch the patriots game, so I'll take the word of those who did, in the assumption that the Refs gave the win to the Pats, especially as I watched the Minnesota/Baltimore game, and basically the same exact thing happened. The only difference is, I suppose the refs didn't want to give Minnesota an interception, so they called a phantom PI on the play, which resulted in the Ravens getting a touchdown a couple plays later. All in all, it seems that it was not NFL officiating crews' best week.

**Alfndrate**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Redbeard wrote:

Really? Have you ever tackled someone - someone that much bigger than you with a lot more forward momentum? You hit high to hit above the center of mass. You hit low to hit below the center of mass. If you hit the center of mass, you bounce off, especially when you're giving up that much weight.

I have. And in rugby no less. Head/body position + technique trump size every day of the week. Granted, the point of a tackle in rugby is a little bit different than football, but my point is still the same. Oh, and I didn't have the "luxury" of those injury producing plastic girly things the guys in the NFL wear

I will say this, rugby players do indeed know how to make a tackle. Boise State has turned to their local rugby players to teach safe tackling techniques, and they've been pretty receptive to the training and I think have made fewer missed tackles this season. Though I think an article I've seen on the 'trading of secrets' if you will is a little bit different in the two sports. In American football, every inch matters, but in rugby it's not as important unless you're near the goal line (I'll admit my knowledge of Rugby is worse than my knowledge of soccer), so proper tackling is taught in rugby because you can afford that little give and take with a tackle, unlike football where things like "yards after catch" and "yards after contact" are important stats to look at when seeing how effective a player can be.

**kronk**

Alfndrate wrote:
Kronk should be happy about that.

Kronk thanks Kubiak for his service. It was a good run. Now get the feth out of Houston and take Shaub with you.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Alfndrate wrote:

I will say this, rugby players do indeed know how to make a tackle. Boise State has turned to their local rugby players to teach safe tackling techniques, and they've been pretty receptive to the training and I think have made fewer missed tackles this season. Though I think an article I've seen on the 'trading of secrets' if you will is a little bit different in the two sports. In American football, every inch matters, but in rugby it's not as important unless you're near the goal line (I'll admit my knowledge of Rugby is worse than my knowledge of soccer), so proper tackling is taught in rugby because you can afford that little give and take with a tackle, unlike football where things like "yards after catch" and "yards after contact" are important stats to look at when seeing how effective a player can be.

Nah... It's partially down to the fact that in American Football, the ball only has to cross the goal line in order to score, whereas in Rugby, the ball must "have downward pressure applied" to it, while on the ground past the Try line. Also, in football, once the tackle is made, everything is reset, so the tactics of moving down the field are a bit different than rugby, where play simply moves to another phase and the tactics and strategies of play from the tackle or ruck are different as well.

Increasingly, I have seen in rugby union stats such as Line Breaks, Meters made, etc. become big things (as they are quite similar to both YACs in football)

I think that the reason Boise State is playing a game of "Fewer missed tackles will equate to good things for us" is because, with the play resetting, that gives them another opportunity to get a fumble, interception, etc. Plus, if they make a good solid hit, but are unable to instantly take the ball carrier down, they will get support from their teammates, who are taught (as I was playing football back in the day) to go for the strip. Basically, first man wraps/attempts the take down, and any additional players that come support are going for the strip/tackle.

**Alpharius**

Ultimately, if the Browns could cover a freakin' onside kick successfully, they win the game.

So, in the end, the Browns gave the game to the Patriots.

**Redbeard**

I cannot feel my toes, but my Bears rocked tonight, and it was cool to see Ditka's number retired at halftime.

**Chancetragedy**

You went to the game? Super jealous! Yah they put on quite a show for a ditka retirement party!

**Ensis Ferrae**

Redbeard wrote:
I cannot feel my toes, but my Bears rocked tonight, and it was cool to see Ditka's number retired at halftime.

Why would they retire His number? He played for the Cowboys, and coached Da Bears....

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
I cannot feel my toes, but my Bears rocked tonight, and it was cool to see Ditka's number retired at halftime.

Why would they retire His number? He played for the Cowboys, and coached Da Bears....

Not sure if Serious

For the record he was drafted by the Bears in 61 and was the first 1000 yard receiving TE in the NFL

**Ensis Ferrae**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
I cannot feel my toes, but my Bears rocked tonight, and it was cool to see Ditka's number retired at halftime.

Why would they retire His number? He played for the Cowboys, and coached Da Bears....

Not sure if Serious

For the record he was drafted by the Bears in 61 and was the first 1000 yard receiving TE in the NFL

When was he traded to the 'Boys? because he won a superbowl or 2 with the Coyboys (IIRC, I know he played against the Steelers in one or 2 of them)

**malfred**

Hello wikipedia:

Chicago Bears (1961–1966)
Philadelphia Eagles (1967–1968)
Dallas Cowboys (1969–1972)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ditka

**gorgon**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Redbeard wrote:
I cannot feel my toes, but my Bears rocked tonight, and it was cool to see Ditka's number retired at halftime.

Why would they retire His number? He played for the Cowboys, and coached Da Bears....

Not sure if Serious

For the record he was drafted by the Bears in 61 and was the first 1000 yard receiving TE in the NFL

When was he traded to the 'Boys? because he won a superbowl or 2 with the Coyboys (IIRC, I know he played against the Steelers in one or 2 of them)

Nah, he never played in a SB against the Steelers. Their first matchup was in SB X, after the '75 season.

Iron Mike is, however, from Pittsburgh and one of the all-time greats at the University of Pittsburgh. Hail to Pitt!

**helgrenze**

Some crazy football played this week... Blizzard Bowl in Philly, 5 TDs in 2 mins in Balti, 100 TDs in a week (first time in NFL history), Chicago scoring on their first 7 possessions....

In FFL news, I got bruised in the snow game, Ah well.

**Chancetragedy**

Yah I got beat out as well ;(. Gronk getting injured with 4 points basically lost me the game ugh.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

helgrenze wrote:
Some crazy football played this week... Blizzard Bowl in Philly, 5 TDs in 2 mins in Balti, 100 TDs in a week (first time in NFL history), Chicago scoring on their first 7 possessions....

In FFL news, I got bruised in the snow game, Ah well.

Chicago scored on all 8 possessions (5TDs 3 FGs) excluding the kneel down at the end
And I only got saved by Josh Gordon and the Cards D , on to face Kronk

**Chancetragedy**

Thank you chargers

. If The patriots win on Sunday and they're the #1 seed in the AFC. And after all the key injuries they probably need it to have any chance of making the Super Bowl.