Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
flapgreen

***Chicago Bears Thread*** Perennial Failures.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

:rolleyes: As I keep saying, I think the bind Pace will be in after 3 years will justify my take. My take was never based on year 1 performance. I think we all recognized (or should have) when you trade away two 1sts, you're giving your team a nice boost in year 1 of a trade at the expense of the future.

If you read what I wrote and thought I was saying a single game justified my take, then there's only one fool here and it isn't me. I don't actually believe in karma, but I was saying a tough loss for flapgreen was karma for constantly baiting me back into this thread after he told me to leave and I left.

Never based on 1 year performance lol. How convenient. The hedging you're doing is blatantly obvious to everyone. Bears run away with a division they've been getting pummeled in for years and now it's not based on a "1 year performance." I get that you pay no attention to how salary caps work and rookie contracts.  Let me educate you. You spend big when there's talent available while your QB is on his rookie contract. Trubisky has 2 years left on his rookie deal, which is when the biggest money Mack will get in his contract. The Bears have a very affordable contract with their LT, one of the top 3 highest paid positions in the league.  

The Bears also have a long list of players locked up for the next 2 years with the entire core intact.  Another thing you would know nothing about. 

When you look at the current trend of how the teams are finishing, this is what the trade will break down to:

Raiders receive 2 picks in mid 20s,  1 pick in early 80s,  and a 6th round pick 

Bears receive Mack, 1 pick in mid 30s, 1 5th round pick. 

If you break it down by the draft pick value chart, the Bears gave up the equivalent to a first round pick in the late teens for Mack, the best pass rusher in the league. Of course, you would never spend that much time researching it. Just here for the hot takes and come away looking even more foolish now. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Kwai Chang Caine said:

Bears fans you have a helluva bright future. Damn good game.

 

Yo Flap, where you at? Can you at least mark yourself as “safe”?

Lol I'm fine. Needed some time to digest it all. Brutal game 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a day to reflect, it hurts but I'm excited about the future. The core is intact. Trubisky absolutely balled out in the second half when he was under the most pressure of his career. He rose to the occasion and put his team in a position to win. That's more than I can say for almost any Bears qb in my lifetime, and he's just getting started. It's still a good time to be a Bears fan. It just hurts right now. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read Gould was at the game last night with his family and still has a lot of family who live in Chicago. The Bears have to find a way to bring him back. He's revived his career and is a free agent. That's the biggest missing piece on the Bears right now. Said it earlier in the season, there was no reason to keep Parkey on this team after how things were going throughout the season. Came back to bite us and I'm sure Pace regrets it. Fix it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, renesauz said:

Not sure this is correct, because at the moment there was also the question of whether or not the Bear player was DOWN before the fumble. He wasn't, but that was hardly a complete given at the moment.

Had Miller been down by contact, I believe the play would have been ruled a catch because the play would end when he hit the ground.

Had the referee ruled it a fumble in real time, it's most likely the Eagles would have recovered (multiple players in the vicinity).

However, since the play was called incomplete, the fact that no one recovered the ball is the "proof" that play (effort) stopped with the call.  This is comparable to a whistle blowing a play dead.

I think it is the right call.  Players need to be coached better, obviously.

Interestingly, that isn't a catch by historical standards.  Personally, I think they went too far in trying to correct the problematic catch rules.  Still think a big game will hinge on a debatable catch in the next few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, renesauz said:

Not sure this is correct, because at the moment there was also the question of whether or not the Bear player was DOWN before the fumble. He wasn't, but that was hardly a complete given at the moment.

It doesnt matter because the ref called it incomplete and nobody jumped on the ball. Theres a rule that specifically addresses that, it CAN'T be reviewed under that circumstance, period, full stop. At that point its just like any other play that cant be reviewed- it cant be because the rule says it cant be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

First off, you have no idea anything about me. I've been around here a long time and know a lot of footballguys personally. Accusing someone of doing something like that when you don't know them says more about you than it does me. Have a nice off season. 

Pretty sure he was joking.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

Lol I'm fine. Needed some time to digest it all. Brutal game 

That’s good man. You guys have a bright future. Helluva a game.

Edited by Kwai Chang Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mbuehner said:

It doesnt matter because the ref called it incomplete and nobody jumped on the ball. Theres a rule that specifically addresses that, it CAN'T be reviewed under that circumstance, period, full stop. At that point its just like any other play that cant be reviewed- it cant be because the rule says it cant be.

The recovery is irrelevant if the player was down by contact.  He wasn't in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, modogg said:

clip out now shows an Eagles DL tipped the kick. so hopefully it gives Parkey a little breathing room

NFL changed the play officially to a Blocked Kick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DropKick said:

The recovery is irrelevant if the player was down by contact.  He wasn't in this case.

"When a pass is ruled incomplete, either team can challenge that it was a catch and fumble and that they gained possession of the ball, if there is a clear recovery. The replay official can also initiate a review of this play if it occurs after the two-minute warning or during overtime. If there is video evidence of a clear recovery by either team, the ball will be awarded to that team at the spot of the recovery, but no advance will be allowed. On fourth down or inside two minutes, the ball will be brought back to the spot of the fumble if recovered beyond it. If there is no video evidence of a clear recovery or the ball going out of bounds, the ruling of incomplete stands."

The pass was ruled incomplete, yes?

There was no video evidence of a clear recovery, correct?

The ruling of incomplete stands, end of story.

Edited by mbuehner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zigg said:

Pretty sure he was joking.  

I don't joke that way with people I don't know. Very sad that anyone would go after Parkey that way. He needs to be out of Chicago, but the guy is human. He has a family and a real life. It's too bad a few turds will act that way toward another human being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mbuehner said:

"When a pass is ruled incomplete, either team can challenge that it was a catch and fumble and that they gained possession of the ball, if there is a clear recovery. The replay official can also initiate a review of this play if it occurs after the two-minute warning or during overtime. If there is video evidence of a clear recovery by either team, the ball will be awarded to that team at the spot of the recovery, but no advance will be allowed. On fourth down or inside two minutes, the ball will be brought back to the spot of the fumble if recovered beyond it. If there is no video evidence of a clear recovery or the ball going out of bounds, the ruling of incomplete stands."

The pass was ruled incomplete, yes?

There was no video evidence of a clear recovery, correct?

The ruling of incomplete stands, end of story.

You're reading the wording too narrowly.   If a pass is ruled incomplete you can challenge that it was a catch and down by contact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DropKick said:

You're reading the wording too narrowly.   If a pass is ruled incomplete you can challenge that it was a catch and down by contact. 

Dude, this rule describes this EXACT situation ""When a pass is ruled incomplete, either team can challenge that it was a catch and fumble...etc". The rules says if the ball isnt recovered you CANT challenge that it was a catch.  

Am i taking crazy pills here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mbuehner said:

Dude, this rule describes this EXACT situation ""When a pass is ruled incomplete, either team can challenge that it was a catch and fumble...etc". The rules says if the ball isnt recovered you CANT challenge that it was a catch.  

Am i taking crazy pills here?

Yes, you are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flapgreen said:

Brutal brutal loss. So hard to stomach after being right there in a position to win. Great game, Eagles. Amazing perseverance. 

Hang in there GB.

Great season

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DropKick said:

Yes, you are...

If you can find one poster to agree with you, i will conceed you arent irretrievably, inconsolably, utterly, nuts on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

there was no reason to keep Parkey on this team

$5 Million dollar cap hit of reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The section of the rule book you keep quoting is applicable to this situation and the right call was made.

Had Miller's knee hit he would have been down by contact.  The challenge would have been for a completion and down by contact.    The section of the rules regarding fumble recovery would not be relevant.  I think this makes sense to most posters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

$5 Million dollar cap hit of reasons

Gotta cut your losses sometimes. That 5 million was worth going deeper in the playoffs. Either way, it's time to move forward. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor is there's mutual interest between the Bears and Gould for him to return. Problem is the 49ers may tag him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DropKick said:

The section of the rule book you keep quoting is applicable to this situation and the right call was made.

Had Miller's knee hit he would have been down by contact.  The challenge would have been for a completion and down by contact.    The section of the rules regarding fumble recovery would not be relevant.  I think this makes sense to most posters.

 

The play was ruled an incomplete pass. Hence the rule on incomplete passes and the circumstances they can be reversed is relevant. Not the rules on things that didnt happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

$5 Million dollar cap hit of reasons

How do you like the Lafleur hire? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mbuehner said:

It doesnt matter because the ref called it incomplete and nobody jumped on the ball. Theres a rule that specifically addresses that, it CAN'T be reviewed under that circumstance, period, full stop. At that point its just like any other play that cant be reviewed- it cant be because the rule says it cant be.

ACtually...the rule is that an unrecovered football negates a reversal. If there's no fumble, there's no lack of recovery, and the (non)catch COULD have been reversed. IE: the play in it's entirety could still be reviewed.

 

IN any case, I think we can all agree the refs blew the call, but that the end result was as fair as possible given the original error of calling it incomplete.

Edited by renesauz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mbuehner said:

If you can find one poster to agree with you, i will conceed you arent irretrievably, inconsolably, utterly, nuts on this subject.

OK; so now Renesauz agrees.   Play was reviewable if down by contact.  However, since he wasn't down, you can only challenge catch/fumble.  Since the ball was not recovered, by rule, it can't be reviewed.   That is what happened - I think we all agree.

You're taking the wording specific to a catch/fumble and thinking it applies to all incomplete passes.   My only point was that this play could have been reversed had Miller been down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough loss for the Bears fan.  I felt bad for Parkay and know the sudden end to the season must be painful. 

Seasons seldom end on a high note but I hope you can take some positives into the off season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cody Parkey missed the game winning field goal and yet, he was praying at the 50 yard line after the game. 

There are so many bigger things than a football game. https://t.co/aNnYGr5WRn

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mbuehner said:
6 hours ago, renesauz said:

Not sure this is correct, because at the moment there was also the question of whether or not the Bear player was DOWN before the fumble. He wasn't, but that was hardly a complete given at the moment.

It doesnt matter because the ref called it incomplete and nobody jumped on the ball. Theres a rule that specifically addresses that, it CAN'T be reviewed under that circumstance, period, full stop. At that point its just like any other play that cant be reviewed- it cant be because the rule says it cant be.

:goodposting:

However, I don't think you can blame any of the Bears for failing to jump on the ball, because the ref blew his whistle (at which point the play was dead and no recovery would be allowed). The ball simply bounced too far away for any Bear to recover it in time.

Basically, the Bears needed one of two things to happen:

1. refs call the initial play as "incomplete", but the loose ball bounces into the waiting hands of a Bears player (before the whistle blows).

2. refs call the initial play as "catch + fumble", and nobody recovers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, [scooter] said:

:goodposting:

However, I don't think you can blame any of the Bears for failing to jump on the ball, because the ref blew his whistle (at which point the play was dead and no recovery would be allowed). The ball simply bounced too far away for any Bear to recover it in time.

Basically, the Bears needed one of two things to happen:

1. refs call the initial play as "incomplete", but the loose ball bounces into the waiting hands of a Bears player (before the whistle blows).

2. refs call the initial play as "catch + fumble", and nobody recovers.

 

Not sure I agree with you that you can’t blame any of the Bears for not jumping on the ball.  Players jump on the ball all the time when a QB is hit when throwing and its in question on if his arm was going forward, or on screen passes that are blatantly forward but within a yard or so of not being.  They jump on it just in case.    When Miller dropped/fumbled that ball I instantly yelled “get on the ball, get the f’n ball” and everyone else in the room looked at me like I was crazy (I guess they look at me like that anyway half the time), but I thought he had caught the ball and it was a fumble...how didnt Anthony Miller think that?  I get the whistle blew, but Miller should have known that he caught that.   Maybe blame isnt the right word, as I certainly don’t blame Miller, or any specific player for that matter, for the loss, but if anyone in the stadium knew he should jump not he ball and that it was a catch then fumble, it should have been Miller.  It was just too close not to, even if the whistle blew.  

That said I am pumped for the bears future.  I dont care what FF Ninja says, that trade for Mack was worth it.  Our defense looks like it will be great for years to come.  I like Trub, Miller, Cohen etc.   Ive been on the season ticket waiting list for 10 years now (ever since I could afford the $400 deposit) and the only thing im bummed about is I dont think my number will be moving up very quickly the next few years because the future is bright!  BEAR DOWN!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, flapgreen said:

I dish it out. I can take it, too. The Bears going from worst to first and going head to head with the defending Champs to the last second is more than I could hope for in any one year turnaround. The fact you think this season shows justification to your asinine prediction shows how big of a fool you are and how clueless you are when it comes to football. Now move along 

I'm not sure how many times I can tell a person the same thing, but I always disliked the trade for the long term impact. I've painstakingly explained this to you several times. I'm not going to bother doing it again.

11 hours ago, flapgreen said:

Seriously, how clueless can a person be? Trubisky balled out in crunch time and led to what should've been the game winning score over the defending Champs. Your willingness to want to be right is making you look foolish. You keep up with nothing about the Bears cap situation and the numbers of the actual trade itself. If you're going to roll up in here to talk trash, at least be prepared. 

Flacco strung together several nice playoff games in a row resulting in a SB, but would you be excited if he was your franchise QB? Don't pretend like one drive somehow validates Trubisky as a franchise QB. Unbaised observers all realize that after 2 years his ability to be a franchise QB is still up in the air. I've said it before, but the guy probably led the league this season in dropped interceptions...

11 hours ago, flapgreen said:

Never based on 1 year performance lol. How convenient. The hedging you're doing is blatantly obvious to everyone. Bears run away with a division they've been getting pummeled in for years and now it's not based on a "1 year performance." I get that you pay no attention to how salary caps work and rookie contracts.  Let me educate you. You spend big when there's talent available while your QB is on his rookie contract. Trubisky has 2 years left on his rookie deal, which is when the biggest money Mack will get in his contract. The Bears have a very affordable contract with their LT, one of the top 3 highest paid positions in the league.  

The Bears also have a long list of players locked up for the next 2 years with the entire core intact.  Another thing you would know nothing about. 

When you look at the current trend of how the teams are finishing, this is what the trade will break down to:

Raiders receive 2 picks in mid 20s,  1 pick in early 80s,  and a 6th round pick 

Bears receive Mack, 1 pick in mid 30s, 1 5th round pick. 

If you break it down by the draft pick value chart, the Bears gave up the equivalent to a first round pick in the late teens for Mack, the best pass rusher in the league. Of course, you would never spend that much time researching it. Just here for the hot takes and come away looking even more foolish now. 

Hedging my bets? :rolleyes: Anytime someone trades two future 1sts for the right to give a guy a massive contract they are giving their team a shot in the arm for that first year. You're mortgaging your future to improve your present, so obviously year 1 of that trade is going to look most appealing to the casual fan. And if you guys had pulled an Eli and won a championship with a middling QB then it would be worth it. But short of a SB, this trade will sting later.

As for the "let me educate you"... :lmao: thanks for the laugh but please don't try that again. First of all, Trubisky essentially has 3 years left on his contract - you forgot the 5th year option. You won't really feel the sting of the loss of 1st round talent for a few years* - right around when Trubisky's contract is up. In order to make up for that missing talent, you'll have to pay free agents which will be much, much more costly than 1st round contracts. That will be very hard on your cap and due to this,  you might have to end up cutting Mack to sign Trubisky - if he's even worth signing. If he totally flops in his 3rd year, you'll sorely miss that 2020 1st which could've been used to draft his replacement. Again, nobody knows if Trubisky is the truth and Pace certainly didn't know it after the first year, so that risk is very real.

*This is why having guys locked up for the next 2 years doesn't help 2021/2022. When all those contracts come up at the same time, it's going to be hell to pay. If Trubisky doesn't pan out, Pace will pack up and leave town around that time. You'll be busy creating disparaging thread titles about the guy, and it'll be long forgotten that you once blindly stood by his side despite logic saying it was a very risky move for him to push all his chips in after a lukewarm at best rookie season for Trubisky. 

Your problem (one of them anyway) is that you took my analysis of the trade personally. It was not a "hot take" as you claim, but just a rational, sober minded analysis of the risks and opportunity costs involved. I came in here purely to discuss it with the fans of the team and you took it as an insult that I would question your GM and attacked me for it. Sorry for trying to bring a little critical thinking into your life. I'm sure blind faith will serve you well. /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, flapgreen said:

First off, you have no idea anything about me. I've been around here a long time and know a lot of footballguys personally. Accusing someone of doing something like that when you don't know them says more about you than it does me. Have a nice off season. 

You know it was a joke, right?  You take things very serious and almost always have knee jerk reactions on here.  You're an emotional fan and there's nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mbuehner said:

Apparently that is indeed the rule when the ball is never recovered on a completed pass that is fumbled. Its crazy but there you go.

That being said, how any team isnt coached to jump on every loose ball on every single play no matter what is beyond me. That and touch the guy with the ball if hes laying on the ground. Simple habits but they cost teams every week.

Edit: more accurately, the play was initially ruled incomplete, and the rule says if there is not clear recovery the play cant be reviewed at all. 

Yea, pretty much this -  every player should make sure in a situation like this to go pick up the ball.  

That will last until there is a scuffle after the whistle for a loose ball.  Then the rule will change - but right now it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, [scooter] said:

:goodposting:

However, I don't think you can blame any of the Bears for failing to jump on the ball, because the ref blew his whistle (at which point the play was dead and no recovery would be allowed). The ball simply bounced too far away for any Bear to recover it in time.

Basically, the Bears needed one of two things to happen:

1. refs call the initial play as "incomplete", but the loose ball bounces into the waiting hands of a Bears player (before the whistle blows). 

2. refs call the initial play as "catch + fumble", and nobody recovers.

 

No.  There is no excuse in today's world for not pursuing that football.  I wouldn't be surprised if they averaged once a week that an incomplete or downed runner actually fumbled the ball and it gets reversed on replay.  These are professional players and they should know that you don't leave those kinds of things to chance given the stakes and the possibility of it being overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's way too soon to say the Mack trade was a bust (I know most aren't saying that).  Let the guy get a full offseason with the team, but I think every DL player gets taken out of games.  The Eagles neutralized Aaron Donald in their game vs the Rams - if an opposing team focuses on shutting a DL they usually will, and other players need to step up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

I'm not sure how many times I can tell a person the same thing, but I always disliked the trade for the long term impact. I've painstakingly explained this to you several times. I'm not going to bother doing it again.

Flacco strung together several nice playoff games in a row resulting in a SB, but would you be excited if he was your franchise QB? Don't pretend like one drive somehow validates Trubisky as a franchise QB. Unbaised observers all realize that after 2 years his ability to be a franchise QB is still up in the air. I've said it before, but the guy probably led the league this season in dropped interceptions...

Hedging my bets? :rolleyes: Anytime someone trades two future 1sts for the right to give a guy a massive contract they are giving their team a shot in the arm for that first year. You're mortgaging your future to improve your present, so obviously year 1 of that trade is going to look most appealing to the casual fan. And if you guys had pulled an Eli and won a championship with a middling QB then it would be worth it. But short of a SB, this trade will sting later.

As for the "let me educate you"... :lmao: thanks for the laugh but please don't try that again. First of all, Trubisky essentially has 3 years left on his contract - you forgot the 5th year option. You won't really feel the sting of the loss of 1st round talent for a few years* - right around when Trubisky's contract is up. In order to make up for that missing talent, you'll have to pay free agents which will be much, much more costly than 1st round contracts. That will be very hard on your cap and due to this,  you might have to end up cutting Mack to sign Trubisky - if he's even worth signing. If he totally flops in his 3rd year, you'll sorely miss that 2020 1st which could've been used to draft his replacement. Again, nobody knows if Trubisky is the truth and Pace certainly didn't know it after the first year, so that risk is very real.

*This is why having guys locked up for the next 2 years doesn't help 2021/2022. When all those contracts come up at the same time, it's going to be hell to pay. If Trubisky doesn't pan out, Pace will pack up and leave town around that time. You'll be busy creating disparaging thread titles about the guy, and it'll be long forgotten that you once blindly stood by his side despite logic saying it was a very risky move for him to push all his chips in after a lukewarm at best rookie season for Trubisky. 

Your problem (one of them anyway) is that you took my analysis of the trade personally. It was not a "hot take" as you claim, but just a rational, sober minded analysis of the risks and opportunity costs involved. I came in here purely to discuss it with the fans of the team and you took it as an insult that I would question your GM and attacked me for it. Sorry for trying to bring a little critical thinking into your life. I'm sure blind faith will serve you well. /s

Man you're a broken record. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gustavo Fring said:

Man you're a broken record. 

:lmao: Not by choice. He keeps saying things that imply he either forgot what I've said, didn't understand the concept, or didn't follow the logic. I don't actually enjoy repeating myself or having to act like I'm on /r/ELI5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

:lmao: Not by choice. He keeps saying things that imply he either forgot what I've said, didn't understand the concept, or didn't follow the logic. I don't actually enjoy repeating myself or having to act like I'm on /r/ELI5

With flap, a combo off all 3 things is all too likely a scenario

  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goose Island with some quality shtick going on here. Make a 43 yard FG and free beer for the year

mmmm beer

\

:homer:

 

If I'm Parkey, I'm headed down there right now and getting me 365 days worth of free cold ones.

 

Edited by Epic Problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DropKick said:

OK; so now Renesauz agrees.   Play was reviewable if down by contact.  However, since he wasn't down, you can only challenge catch/fumble.  Since the ball was not recovered, by rule, it can't be reviewed.   That is what happened - I think we all agree.

You're taking the wording specific to a catch/fumble and thinking it applies to all incomplete passes.   My only point was that this play could have been reversed had Miller been down

Yeahh.... your goalposts are shifting.  If things that didnt happen would have happened, different rules would have applied. Thanks for clearing that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Epic Problem said:

Goose Island with some quality shtick going on here. Make a 43 yard FG and free beer for the year

mmmm beer

\

:homer:

If I'm Parkey, I'm headed down there right now and getting me 365 days worth of free cold ones.

Only if you get an extra case each week for hitting the upright and double that amount for hitting the upright and crossbar on the same kick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, [scooter] said:
18 hours ago, mbuehner said:
19 hours ago, renesauz said:

Not sure this is correct, because at the moment there was also the question of whether or not the Bear player was DOWN before the fumble. He wasn't, but that was hardly a complete given at the moment.

It doesnt matter because the ref called it incomplete and nobody jumped on the ball. Theres a rule that specifically addresses that, it CAN'T be reviewed under that circumstance, period, full stop. At that point its just like any other play that cant be reviewed- it cant be because the rule says it cant be.

:goodposting:

However, I don't think you can blame any of the Bears for failing to jump on the ball, because the ref blew his whistle (at which point the play was dead and no recovery would be allowed). The ball simply bounced too far away for any Bear to recover it in time.

Basically, the Bears needed one of two things to happen:

1. refs call the initial play as "incomplete", but the loose ball bounces into the waiting hands of a Bears player (before the whistle blows).

2. refs call the initial play as "catch + fumble", and nobody recovers. 

Can't be reviewed, or can't be REVERSED? The language would matter there. I haven't seen the rule myself but only heard it spoken of on NFLN, where they consistently used the word REVERSED. AS I said, if there's no fumble, the catch/non-catch could certainly be reviewed (and reversed), and it wasn't crystal clear live that it was fumbled before the knee was down. A recovery can only happen after a fumble, and a FUMBLE can also be reviewed. If there's no fumble, then there's also no (lack of) a recovery. To say the play couldn't be reviewed is, IMHO, nonsense. It is correct to say, however, that once determined the fumble was real, the whole play couldn't be reversed.

Such an odd occurrence, and we all learned about a rule I hadn't ever known before. And it's a pretty good rule...at least it seems so right now because the end result was in fact the fairest resolution given the missed call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ditka...mike ditka said:

Not sure I agree with you that you can’t blame any of the Bears for not jumping on the ball.  Players jump on the ball all the time when a QB is hit when throwing and its in question on if his arm was going forward, or on screen passes that are blatantly forward but within a yard or so of not being.  They jump on it just in case.    When Miller dropped/fumbled that ball I instantly yelled “get on the ball, get the f’n ball” and everyone else in the room looked at me like I was crazy (I guess they look at me like that anyway half the time), but I thought he had caught the ball and it was a fumble...how didnt Anthony Miller think that?  I get the whistle blew, but Miller should have known that he caught that.   Maybe blame isnt the right word, as I certainly don’t blame Miller, or any specific player for that matter, for the loss, but if anyone in the stadium knew he should jump not he ball and that it was a catch then fumble, it should have been Miller.  It was just too close not to, even if the whistle blew.  

That said I am pumped for the bears future.  I dont care what FF Ninja says, that trade for Mack was worth it.  Our defense looks like it will be great for years to come.  I like Trub, Miller, Cohen etc.   Ive been on the season ticket waiting list for 10 years now (ever since I could afford the $400 deposit) and the only thing im bummed about is I dont think my number will be moving up very quickly the next few years because the future is bright!  BEAR DOWN!!!!

There were 4 or 5 Eagles DBs in the area, and one WR who was on the ground. Called correctly live (no whistle and a beanbag thrown immediately), the Eagles would have recovered the ball. Bears fans should be breathing a sigh of relief the ref had it wrong, not complaining about it. Eagles fans weren't happy, but were at least contented that the unknown rule at least kept the Bears from any additional advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, renesauz said:
14 hours ago, [scooter] said:

:goodposting:

However, I don't think you can blame any of the Bears for failing to jump on the ball, because the ref blew his whistle (at which point the play was dead and no recovery would be allowed). The ball simply bounced too far away for any Bear to recover it in time.

Basically, the Bears needed one of two things to happen:

1. refs call the initial play as "incomplete", but the loose ball bounces into the waiting hands of a Bears player (before the whistle blows).

2. refs call the initial play as "catch + fumble", and nobody recovers. 

Can't be reviewed, or can't be REVERSED? The language would matter there. I haven't seen the rule myself but only heard it spoken of on NFLN, where they consistently used the word REVERSED. AS I said, if there's no fumble, the catch/non-catch could certainly be reviewed (and reversed), and it wasn't crystal clear live that it was fumbled before the knee was down. A recovery can only happen after a fumble, and a FUMBLE can also be reviewed. If there's no fumble, then there's also no (lack of) a recovery. To say the play couldn't be reviewed is, IMHO, nonsense. It is correct to say, however, that once determined the fumble was real, the whole play couldn't be reversed.

Based on the language of the rulebook, the play shouldn't have even been reviewed:

"When a pass is ruled incomplete, either team can challenge that it was a catch and fumble and that they gained possession of the ball, if there is a clear recovery."

Since there was no clear recovery, the referee could have announced to the crowd that the ball was not recovered and therefore the play will not be reviewed. But there was no harm in reviewing the play anyway, just to confirm that there was, indeed, no clear recovery.

My point is that it would have been physically impossible for any Bear player to make a clear recovery on this play, since the ball was flung several yards away and the referee blew the whistle before any Bear had a chance to pick it up. In order to qualify as a "clear recovery", the ball must be recovered BEFORE the whistle is blown (or in the immediate moments after the whistle). That wasn't possible in this case, as the ref blew the whistle as soon as the ball touched the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the Lafleur hire...for the Bears. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, renesauz said:

There were 4 or 5 Eagles DBs in the area, and one WR who was on the ground. Called correctly live (no whistle and a beanbag thrown immediately), the Eagles would have recovered the ball. Bears fans should be breathing a sigh of relief the ref had it wrong, not complaining about it. Eagles fans weren't happy, but were at least contented that the unknown rule at least kept the Bears from any additional advantage.

But it wasn’t called correctly.  Given that it wasnt called correctly, the correct response was to jump on the ball.  By BOTH the eagles and the bears.  They both messed up!  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, flapgreen said:

I read Gould was at the game last night with his family and still has a lot of family who live in Chicago. The Bears have to find a way to bring him back. He's revived his career and is a free agent. That's the biggest missing piece on the Bears right now. Said it earlier in the season, there was no reason to keep Parkey on this team after how things were going throughout the season. Came back to bite us and I'm sure Pace regrets it. Fix it 

I never really understood why the Bears cut Gould in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

I never really understood why the Bears cut Gould in the first place.

He was on a very bad streak and lost multiple games. Didn't make it past one season with the Giants after that either. It was time for him to go and it really helped revive his career. I hope he can come back home. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, flapgreen said:

How do you like the Lafleur hire? 

Tough to say but everything I'm hearing is good. I discount his time in Tenn last year because they had a lot of injuries and getting used to a new OC takes time. But he's got a decent track record.

Like Nagy and McVay etc, they had no HC experience but turned out pretty well. I like his pedigree. Could he blow up and could the Packers plunge into mediocrity or worse? Sure, but I'm willing to give him a chance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mbuehner said:

Yeahh.... your goalposts are shifting.  If things that didnt happen would have happened, different rules would have applied. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not shifting in the slightest.  You misunderstood from the start... 

Thanks for trying to be witty and sarcastic.  You seldom see that around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.