[Official] NFL 2010


 Share

Recommended Posts

Falcons game was CRAZY and kickers did their part, really sad they lost, my Falcons too. The Eagles though, wow Vick is really doing well and Kevin Kolb is ****, a huge failure and really seems like a huge p*ssy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So happy that football is BACK! The Saints Vikings game was a hard fought game, but I'll take a win over a loss.

Houston dominating Indy was a fun site to see. Typically I root for the Colts, and even though I picked them to win, I was pleased to see Texans win. Only their second time in the last nine years (17 games) they have beaten the Colts. If the Texans can continue to play that way for most of the season, winning the AFC South isn't so far fetched, much less reaching the playoffs. It's also the first time in the last seven to ten years that the Colts won't have won their first 12 or more games.

Chad Johnson's non-TD catch was a great catch, and it was only due to the technicality of the rule that it wasn't, which sucks for him and the Lions. I picked Chicago for that game, so no harm for me.

As for Kolb, he's got potential, but he's got really big shoes to fill (despite what most Eagles fans say, McNabb was a winning QB). Vick is in an ideal position with an ultimately untested QB starting. 175 yards passing, 103 yards rushing, that's what Vick so good for the Falcons. With Kolb suffering a concussion, Vick see even more playing time.

And lastly, I don't care if the Cowboys D and some of their players are among my fantasy teams. I want them crushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So happy that football is BACK! The Saints Vikings game was a hard fought game, but I'll take a win over a loss.

That was an awesome first game of the season, favre just couldn't get anything going with his receivers. AP is a beast though.

Houston dominating Indy was a fun site to see. Typically I root for the Colts, and even though I picked them to win, I was pleased to see Texans win. Only their second time in the last nine years (17 games) they have beaten the Colts. If the Texans can continue to play that way for most of the season, winning the AFC South isn't so far fetched, much less reaching the playoffs. It's also the first time in the last seven to ten years that the Colts won't have won their first 12 or more games.

I love watching the colts lose. It makes me happy seeing payton cry.

As for Kolb, he's got potential, but he's got really big shoes to fill (despite what most Eagles fans say, McNabb was a winning QB). Vick is in an ideal position with an ultimately untested QB starting. 175 yards passing, 103 yards rushing, that's what Vick so good for the Falcons. With Kolb suffering a concussion, Vick see even more playing time.

Vick was awesome today, my boy did well :) He had a TD on top of that too.

And lastly, I don't care if the Cowboys D and some of their players are among my fantasy teams. I want them crushed.

die cowboys die!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, Dallas haters.

Their O-line was horrible and the penalties killed them. Their offense couldn't get it done when they finally got within range, and they need a kicker desperately -- quit trying to save a damn roster spot by using the place kicker.

They'll still make it to the playoffs, but that was a pretty crappy loss.

Oh, and the Lions got screwed out of a victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calvin Johnson's non-TD catch was a great catch, and it was only due to the technicality of the rule that it wasn't, which sucks for him and the Lions. I picked Chicago for that game, so no harm for me.

If that was a correct ruling they need to alter or get rid of that rule because their expectations of what you need to do in order for a catch in the end zone to count is rediculous. He had complete control of the ball from the second he touched it, he then put two feet down, sat down in the endzone, and then started getting up. Because the ball left his hand at that point its not a catch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was a correct ruling they need to alter or get rid of that rule because their expectations of what you need to do in order for a catch in the end zone to count is rediculous. He had complete control of the ball from the second he touched it, he then put two feet down, sat down in the endzone, and then started getting up. Because the ball left his hand at that point its not a catch?

Not just because of that. It has to do with him catching the ball and "completing" whatever fall or hit happens with the possession. The argument could be made that his turning and using the ball to push himself up could be considered a second movement or act; if that were the case, it would have been ruled a complete pass, but the entire process of going up and landing, rolling, etc., the player must maintain possession. Here's a good read on the whole situation. It should have been a catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think they should just drop the whole "complete act" thing, if he has posession and comes down in bounds in the end zone why do they need anything else? It's not like he was juggling the ball or anything, if he follows through the catch rolling over, turning, or anything why should that act now be somehow bound to the catch? If that had happened in the open field and he wasn't touched and ruled down that would have been a fumble not an incompletion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had COMPLETE control of the ball. The only thing they seem to be bitching about is that he leg go of it when he was celebrating. Even when he had it in one hand, he had CONTROL of it. How that can be questioned is beyond me.

His feet were firmly planted, and when they were firmly planted, he had possession of the ball. Even when falling, the ball was securely in his hand. What happens after that SHOULD NOT MATTER. He caught it, was clearly in the end zone, and then fell AFTER catching it. But even WHILE falling, he had control of the ball. The issue seems to be that he let the ball touch the ground and let go of it. Why does that matter at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had COMPLETE control of the ball. The only thing they seem to be bitching about is that he leg go of it when he was celebrating. Even when he had it in one hand, he had CONTROL of it. How that can be questioned is beyond me.

i just watched it again about 5 times, i completely agree with the call, you have to show you have completely control, the catch doesn't stop until you are completely down or out of bounds, he was neither when the ball came loose.

He's a idiot...mostly bad luck, but still a bonehead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ball touching the ground wouldn't have been a problem as long as the officials could clearly see he maintained possession, which he did up to the point of getting off the ground. Had he gotten up with the ball in hand instead of letting go, this wouldn't have been an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just watched it again about 5 times, i completely agree with the call, you have to show you have completely control, the catch doesn't stop until you are completely down or out of bounds, he was neither when the ball came loose.

He's a idiot...mostly bad luck, but still a bonehead.

He was completely down, though. He maintained position through the catch, to the ground, and when he was getting back up, he let the ball go. It was a very bad call and some ref should be on the brink of losing his job.

I'm over the moon about that Cowboys loss though. The Redskins still suck, but apparently the Cowboys are even worse. :laugh:

Also, I hate Vick (because I hate what he did and I also hate his alma mater, Virginia Tech [which had an absolutely hilarious loss to JMU, an FCS team, this weekend :D]), but he really should be starting for Philly. Kolb was complete ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was completely down, though. He maintained position through the catch, to the ground, and when he was getting back up, he let the ball go. It was a very bad call and some ref should be on the brink of losing his job.

...

It was NOT a bad call at all! The ref made the call as the current rule states - blame the rulebook not the ref. I am all about refs making bad calls, but it was dead on. ESPN / FOX clearly showed the rule in its entirety and it was properly called. I'm sure this will raise questions as Calvin clearly did have possession and control - just not as the league defined it in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cowboys game was horrible. I can't believe that they blew it, they should have easily won. They should have taken the knee to end the first half and then all the penalties killed us as well. It was a very disappointing night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ball touching the ground wouldn't have been a problem as long as the officials could clearly see he maintained possession, which he did up to the point of getting off the ground. Had he gotten up with the ball in hand instead of letting go, this wouldn't have been an issue.

You just admitted the exact opposite of what you're arguing. He maintained possession of the ball through the entire process of the catch. When he hit the ground, he clearly had possession of the ball, so him getting up and letting go of the ball is a nonissue. Furthermore, they reviewed it and clearly had the opportunity to see what you just stated. The NFL for some reason has decided that the review process is a joke now based on all the televised games I saw, as they almost never reverse a call now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just admitted the exact opposite of what you're arguing. He maintained possession of the ball through the entire process of the catch. When he hit the ground, he clearly had possession of the ball, so him getting up and letting go of the ball is a nonissue. Furthermore, they reviewed it and clearly had the opportunity to see what you just stated. The NFL for some reason has decided that the review process is a joke now based on all the televised games I saw, as they almost never reverse a call now.

I did no such thing. Let me explain it a bit more clearly: the ball can hit the ground and the pass be completed so long as the player has possession during and after the ball makes contact with the ground. Johnson let go of the ball while it was on the ground and by rule, that's an incomplete pass. This is one of rare catches that illustrates the problem with the ruling, but in nearly all other cases, the rule properly dictates the outcome.

Like I said before, had he gotten up with the ball rather than letting it go when it was on the ground, this wouldn't have been an issue for debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did no such thing. Let me explain it a bit more clearly: the ball can hit the ground and the pass be completed so long as the player has possession during and after the ball makes contact with the ground. Johnson let go of the ball while it was on the ground and by rule, that's an incomplete pass. This is one of rare catches that illustrates the problem with the ruling, but in nearly all other cases, the rule properly dictates the outcome.

Like I said before, had he gotten up with the ball rather than letting it go when it was on the ground, this wouldn't have been an issue for debate.

That is not, by rule, an incomplete pass. The ground can't cause a fumble, just like it can't cause an incomplete pass when you have control of the ball when hitting the ground. What happened after he hit the ground is relevant to the situation unless you argue he didn't have control, and it seems pretty clear to me that he did, in fact, have control. Just because he had the ball in one hand doesn't mean he didn't have control. He was down, the ball was controlled securely in his hand.

To quote the rule, "if the regains control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." So, even if you want to argue he lost control, he clearly had it secured in his hand before hitting the ground. At what point are you saying he lost control? Because that's the issue. His legs were clearly down, he clearly had control of the ball, and then it came out after making the catch. This isn't like the other instances where the receivers lost control of the ball or weren't properly handling it. He doesn't need two hands on the ball to have control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.