What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New England at Pittsburgh (1 Viewer)

pecorino said:
The reason the Steelers seem overdue to beat the Patriots is that they almost never do actually beat them. I only recall one regular season game (when the Steelers beat the Eagles and the Pats two games in a row to break both of their winning streaks). Never beat them in the playoffs. Where you say "overdue," I say it has not happened nor will it happen this year. The Pats are in the Steelers' head, it looks likely that the game will be in NE, and most importantly, the Steelers always get significantly outcoached. It's been freeing this year to know, since the preseason, that the end is pre-ordained. I've come to accept that the Steelers can only get to the Super Bowl if some other team takes care of the Pats. Seems as true today as ever. I hope the 6-seed (or whoever gets to Foxboro in the Divisional round) has some decent matchups with NE because they are the Steelers' only hope.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

 
pecorino said:
The reason the Steelers seem overdue to beat the Patriots is that they almost never do actually beat them. I only recall one regular season game (when the Steelers beat the Eagles and the Pats two games in a row to break both of their winning streaks). Never beat them in the playoffs. Where you say "overdue," I say it has not happened nor will it happen this year. The Pats are in the Steelers' head, it looks likely that the game will be in NE, and most importantly, the Steelers always get significantly outcoached. It's been freeing this year to know, since the preseason, that the end is pre-ordained. I've come to accept that the Steelers can only get to the Super Bowl if some other team takes care of the Pats. Seems as true today as ever. I hope the 6-seed (or whoever gets to Foxboro in the Divisional round) has some decent matchups with NE because they are the Steelers' only hope.
Click to expand...
You watched the game today and this is your reaction?  

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
First he didn't go to the ground as part of the catch. It was a move to go in the end zone, so it is the wrong rule to even be thinking about.

Second, I never saw a single shot that you can clearly see the ball is on the ground. I cannot see how you can call that indisputable evidence.
Click to expand...
Watch it when you're sober.

 
fred_1_15301 said:
You watched the game today and this is your reaction?  
Click to expand...
Only watched the second half, I confess. After seeing the same outcomes in the Brady/Belichick era, I stopped caring a couple years ago. It’s the same story with the same ending. The Pats own the Steelers. Pains me to say it, but it is true. How is this game different? A loss is a loss.

 
pecorino said:
Only watched the second half, I confess. After seeing the same outcomes in the Brady/Belichick era, I stopped caring a couple years ago. It’s the same story with the same ending. The Pats own the Steelers. Pains me to say it, but it is true. How is this game different? A loss is a loss.
Click to expand...
Ok whatever floats your boat. No reason for you to tune into the playoffs then.

 
pecorino said:
Only watched the second half, I confess. After seeing the same outcomes in the Brady/Belichick era, I stopped caring a couple years ago. It’s the same story with the same ending. The Pats own the Steelers. Pains me to say it, but it is true. How is this game different? A loss is a loss.
Click to expand...
Pats are clearly beatable.  I think we'll see that several teams (Jaguars, Chiefs, Ravens?) are really in the mix this season.  More wide open than in recent memory.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wilked said:
Except he didn’t catch it 
Click to expand...
But he did.   You can say anything you want but for the first 80 years of the league it was a catch.  The NFL is so F upped they literally mess up everything.

The intent of IR was to overturn obvious bad calls, not to dissect the minutiae. 

Bottom line the Patriots won and that’s all that matters.  Good for them but it is not like they did anything on that play that earned the a victory.  They were very, very lucky

 
JoeSteeler said:
I can't blame Ben for trying to win it in regulation. Pats went right down the field on their last drive
Click to expand...
Agreed. The criticism of Ben is unfounded. You either spike it and get a FG for OT, or you get a play off with a chance to win it, and still get the FG to tie and send to overtime. (Oh, by the way, the WR was held, and it wasn't called.)

 
Godsbrother said:
But he did.   You can say anything you want but for the first 80 years of the league it was a catch.  The NFL is so F upped they literally mess up everything.

The intent of IR was to overturn obvious bad calls, not to dissect the minutiae. 

Bottom line the Patriots won and that’s all that matters.  Good for them but it is not like they did anything on that play that earned the a victory.  They were very, very lucky
Click to expand...
This is, and has been, a very real problem for the past several seasons and I don't know how the NFL overcomes it. The emotion and "heat of the moment" has been sucked out of the game as we wait for the jury to come back on every exciting play to tell us what we really saw.

Not sure what the answer is.

 
Grigs Allmoon said:
Agreed. The criticism of Ben is unfounded. You either spike it and get a FG for OT, or you get a play off with a chance to win it, and still get the FG to tie and send to overtime. (Oh, by the way, the WR was held, and it wasn't called.)
Click to expand...
Yeah there was a clear illegal contact on that play.

 
Grigs Allmoon said:
Agreed. The criticism of Ben is unfounded. You either spike it and get a FG for OT, or you get a play off with a chance to win it, and still get the FG to tie and send to overtime. (Oh, by the way, the WR was held, and it wasn't called.)
Click to expand...
Watched this several times and have to drop the BS card on this one.

How many complaints/excuses are in play here?  You need to execute to win.

 
DropKick said:
Watched this several times and have to drop the BS card on this one.

How many complaints/excuses are in play here?  You need to execute to win.
Click to expand...
Yeah you maybe right but on the preceding play the Pats didn’t execute but won anyway.

The game is over and both teams need to deal with that but the Pats got a nice break. 

DropKick said:
Watched this several times and have to drop the BS card on this one.

How many complaints/excuses are in play here?  You need to execute to win.
Click to expand...

 
Godsbrother said:
Yeah you maybe right but on the preceding play the Pats didn’t execute but won anyway.

The game is over and both teams need to deal with that but the Pats got a nice break.
Click to expand...
Lots of football to be played yet.  We'll look back at this sometime in the future and realize it wasn't the biggest moment of the season.

 
Grigs Allmoon said:
Agreed. The criticism of Ben is unfounded. You either spike it and get a FG for OT, or you get a play off with a chance to win it, and still get the FG to tie and send to overtime. (Oh, by the way, the WR was held, and it wasn't called.)
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. You can try to win without throwing a horrible pass to a WR with no less than 6 Pats within 3 yards of him. It was a horrible decision that a veteran of his experience shouldn't make. He snatched a loss from what was, at worst, an OT game.

 
The criticism of Ben is certainly warranted, he threw a pick when the game was going to be tied on the next play if that pass was incomplete.  How can he escape criticism?

 
AB in DC said:
And no one is talking about the biggest break the Pats received the entire game.

If Antonio Brown's calf muscle doesn't tear, the Steelers win going away.
Click to expand...
And if Edelman wasn’t hurt Pats might be 14-0.

Who cares. If grandma had balls she’d be grandpa.

 
I was hoping that the call was not overturned as some sort of divine retribution for the tuck rule, but it was not to be.  That would have been poetic justice to some degree.

 
When was the "rule" changed?  I thought as long as the ball crossed the goal line, it was a TD,  much like when Antonio Brown reached over the goal line to beat the Ravens in that game we all remember. Both are receivers, both made "football moves".

 
Copeman said:
When was the "rule" changed?  I thought as long as the ball crossed the goal line, it was a TD,  much like when Antonio Brown reached over the goal line to beat the Ravens in that game we all remember. Both are receivers, both made "football moves".
Click to expand...
why is rule in quotation marks?

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
First he didn't go to the ground as part of the catch. It was a move to go in the end zone, so it is the wrong rule to even be thinking about.
Click to expand...
The rules don’t differentiate why you are going to the ground; they only care whether or not you are going to the ground. 

 
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
shouldn't the break the plane of the goal line take precedence? its certainly does on a running play.....
Click to expand...
Depends on which way the wind is blowing on that play I guess. I watch redzone every Sunday, I see a bunch of these ..most are challenged. There's no rhyme or reason to what's a catch and what isn't anymore. The announcers, the "expert" ex officials in the studio, noone has any idea how it's going to be ruled ever

 
DallasDMac said:
No, it isn't. You can try to win without throwing a horrible pass to a WR with no less than 6 Pats within 3 yards of him. It was a horrible decision that a veteran of his experience shouldn't make. He snatched a loss from what was, at worst, an OT game.
Click to expand...
Ben deserves the criticism.  It was a stupid play that a QB with his experience shouldn't make.  But, he's gotten away with that kind of mistake before. 

Last year (I think it was last year), when the Steelers played the Ravens, they won the game when Ben threw a slant to AB, short of the endzone, and Brown was stopped by 2 (or 3) Ravens.  Brown made a heroic effort to extend the ball over the GL (and barely made it) for the win.  But, if he hadn't broken the plane, time would have likely run out & the Steelers would have missed their opportunity at a game-tying FG.  Ben got a "pass," because Brown made it work out.  In that situation, with no time-outs, so little time left, & a FG to tie, passes have to be to the sideline, in the endzone, or uncatchable.  But Ben went to his guy for the glory play, and his guy bailed him out. 

Last night wasn't much different.  FG will tie, no time-outs, little time left.  The pass has to be a fade or an out, where only a Steeler or no one can catch it.  Ben went for the glory play again, and it burned him. 

He deserves the blame.  But, IMO, almost everything from this game (except for the score, Brown's injury, & Gronk) was good for the Steelers.  They showed that they were willing/able to change their "D," they (IMO) outplayed NE for most of the game, and, assuming they make the AFC championship game without Brown, if Brown is back for a game at NE, I think they have a shot at winning that game.

Brown has 5 weeks to recover/rehab his calf tear.  According to this site, if it's a grade 2 tear (partial tearing of muscle fibers), full recovery takes between "4 to 8 weeks with good rehabilitation."  I'd assume Pitt tries to give him the best rehab they can.  If they hold him out until the AFCC, he could be back.  

 
If my kid caught a ball like that I'd say nice catch but in my heart I'd know he didn't complete the process.  Sometimes we lie to protect our children. 

 
Copeman said:
When was the "rule" changed?  I thought as long as the ball crossed the goal line, it was a TD,  much like when Antonio Brown reached over the goal line to beat the Ravens in that game we all remember. Both are receivers, both made "football moves".
Click to expand...
No change, at least not recently.  If the receiver is going to the ground while making the catch, he must complete the process.  Essentially, he must get up with the ball firmly in his hands.  James caught the ball while going to the ground.  As his knee hit, he lunged for the GL, when the ball hit the ground, he lost control for a second.  The rule was applied correctly.  Your AB comparison is inaccurate, because AB wasn't going to the ground as he made the catch, AND the ball never hit the ground & popped free.  Different situations completely. 

Unfortunate thing is (and James didn't know this), he probably could have gone to the ground & rolled into the EZ with the ball before he got touched.  He was just trying to make the score.  Bad luck.

 
DallasDMac said:
No, it isn't. You can try to win without throwing a horrible pass to a WR with no less than 6 Pats within 3 yards of him. It was a horrible decision that a veteran of his experience shouldn't make. He snatched a loss from what was, at worst, an OT game.
Click to expand...
I should have clarified... I meant his decision to not just spike the ball.

 
Bayhawks said:
No change, at least not recently.  If the receiver is going to the ground while making the catch, he must complete the process.  Essentially, he must get up with the ball firmly in his hands.  James caught the ball while going to the ground.  As his knee hit, he lunged for the GL, when the ball hit the ground, he lost control for a second.  The rule was applied correctly.  Your AB comparison is inaccurate, because AB wasn't going to the ground as he made the catch, AND the ball never hit the ground & popped free.  Different situations completely. 

Unfortunate thing is (and James didn't know this), he probably could have gone to the ground & rolled into the EZ with the ball before he got touched.  He was just trying to make the score.  Bad luck.
Click to expand...
So, he made the catch, but it wasn't a catch?  If not a catch and he lost control of it, it should have been ruled a fumble then, right?  Which he then recovered, for a TD as it was in the end zone.

 
Copeman said:
So, he made the catch, but it wasn't a catch?  If not a catch and he lost control of it, it should have been ruled a fumble then, right?  Which he then recovered, for a TD as it was in the end zone.
Click to expand...
Broski...here to help.  You can't have a fumble if he didn't catch it.  It is simply an incompletion

 
Steeler said:
I said this about the Dez catch - by logic is was a catch, by rule it was not a catch.

However, the Steelers did not lose the game on that play.  After the amazing JuJu huge play to get them to the 10 yard line, the Steelers apparently scored on the next play but it was overturned, obviously.  At that point there were 34 seconds left in the game, you have 2 shots to score a TD or you are going to OT.  While the replay was rolling, why weren't the Steelers planing for it to be overturned?  I thought the 2nd down play was really bad too - a short pass to DHB short of the goal line - no passes should have been thrown short of the goal line.  When DHB was tackled, the Steelers seemed to panic when they didn't need to panic.  And the fake spike play was stupid because I'm pretty sure nobody thought they were going to spike it.  Running a legitimate play with everyone going into the EZ would have been better.  But even at that point, the fake spike play didn't work and there was no reason for Ben to try to thread that needle into double coverage.

So to summarize:

They screwed up during the timeout/review period by not planning the final 3 plays better.

Second down was stupid because they completed a pass short of the goal line, and because the clock was running the Steelers panicked.

While ####ting their pants, they ran the fake spike play (that nobody believed was going to be a spike) and the Pats covered it very well.  Instead of throwing the ball into the monongahela river, Ben tries to fit the ball into double coverage.

Does that about cover it?
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the obvious conclusion: Belichick once again read an incantation from an ancient scroll and screwed up the opposing HC's decision making in the final minute of an important game #cheaters

 
Copeman said:
So, he made the catch, but it wasn't a catch?  If not a catch and he lost control of it, it should have been ruled a fumble then, right?  Which he then recovered, for a TD as it was in the end zone.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't a catch, not the way the NFL defines it.  When going to the ground while ATTEMPTING to make a catch (does that make it better for you, semantically?), the receiver must maintain control of the ball throughout the process.  James lost control of the ball when it hit the ground, WHILE HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF GOING TO THE GROUND WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A CATCH.  There was no fumble, because there was not catch.

IMO, when his knee hit the ground, the catch should be complete, but that's not the NFL's rule, therefore James didn't actually make the catch.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steelers4Life said:
I'll like the odds of Jacksonville being unable to win in Pittsburgh twice in a year.  Everything that could go wrong did in that first matchup, and I'll take Ben at home over Bortles on the road in the playoffs.  

I'd like this Steelers team to get another shot at the Patriots no matter where the game is played.
Click to expand...
It will end like it usually does - with the Steelers' coaching staff making bad decisions and losing the game for them.  

 
fred_1_15301 said:
You watched the game today and this is your reaction?  
Click to expand...
Yes, that Pitts was the better team and had the momentum, but for some reason he coaching staff decided to not do the smart thing and kick the FG and go to OT and lost the game and maybe home field advantage.  Sometime it does feel like other teams try to out Bellichick the Pats, do silly things like that, and lose games they shouldn't.  

 
If he caught the ball and crossed the goal line it's a touchdown regardless of what happens next. 

The NFL rules are clear that he didn't catch the ball.  

If the ball had hit the ground while his hands were reaching for it, we'd all agree it's not a catch. If he started to catch the ball as he was diving for it and used the ground to help, we'd all agree it's not a catch.

In the eyes of the nfl, until he is either running, or all the way to the ground in bounds with the ball in his hands, it's not a catch. He's still "trying to make the catch."

He was still "trying to make the catch" when he crossed the goal line and hadn't finished yet because he wasn't a runner and he was still going to the ground.

And the ball hit the ground while he was still "trying to make the catch".

Which is the same as trapping the ball on the ground, in the eyes of the NFL lawyers, who have taken over the game. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rockaction
Trevor's First Throw In England If You Miss The Jags On Their Bye Week
Replies
8
Views
333
rockaction
rockaction
Godsbrother
*** 2025 Pittsburgh Steelers: Fire Tomlin chants and Renegade booed during loss to Bills
46 47 48
Replies
2K
Views
195K
3C's
3C's
Joe Bryant
NFL Strength of Schedule
Replies
25
Views
4K
Uruk-Hai
Uruk-Hai

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top