2014 NFL Whipping Post

[Vraith]

Clowney was a bust,.

There was a lot of speculation that he would be a bust but he had so much upside that no one was going to pass on a chance to draft him.

I don't know that I'd judge him a bust just yet.
It doesn't look good---
attitude/work ethic is hard to change, [and if reports are true, he's got a problem there]
the physical injury and surgery he has to recover from apparently shaky results for peeps his size, who need to be explosive---
but what he's going through now is just the kind of thing that SOMETIMES transforms people. And I THINK [though I could be wrong] that most of the cost is already paid? It's almost as cheap to keep him as get rid of him at this point?

Johnny Football---there's a guy I fully expect to be a bust.

Just for fun [I think I picked 'em last year, and failed spectacularly??? Not sure] this week:
Colts beat Denver---say, 28-24.
Pats beat Ravens---28-17
Seahawks beat Carolina-- 24-10
Packers beat Dallas---31-27.
[[the only one I'm really confident of is Seahawks over Panthers.]]

[Cail]

Hmmmmmm....

Colts beat Denver - 34-24
Ravens beat Pats - 24-19
Seahawks beat Panthers - 45-13
Packers bear Cowboys - 34-17

I won't even guess on Colts/Ravens (Colts are a better team on paper, Ravens are crazy good in postseason play and are peaking at the right time), and I think Seattle's unbeatable. Neither Dallas nor Carolina has any business in the playoffs, Denver's fallen apart the last few weeks, and New England is once again the beneficiary of a weak division.

Packers are playing good ball, and Rogers is a pleasure to watch. It's a shame that Seattle's so damn good this year.

[SoulBiter]

OK since you forced it out of me:

Colts beat Denver - 34 31
Ravens beat Pats 28 21
Seahawks beat Carolina-- 28 14
Packers beat Dallas 38 27

Oh yeah and last year I thought Seahawks would not be a repeat. Looks like I will eat my words. Unless teams start investing more heavily on the defensive side of the ball, we are going to see the same results each year. Eventually the Seahawks organization wont be able to sustain these high end players due to salary caps but for now they look really good.

[Cybrweez]

Haha, Ravens lose. I feel good about Pats beating den/indy winner. Back to the Super Bowl. Won't be easy against sea/GB winner tho. 2 tough teams there. I think they'd have better chance against GB tho.

Not sure why Ravens didn't run the ball more. Seemed they avg 5 yds per carry. And a couple 3 and shorts where they passed. Questionable. I was worried whole game about that matchup.

At least panthers made a game of it.

[Cail]

Couple of questionable play calls and bad penalties. Freaking painful listening to that tool Chris Collinsworth calling the game too.

[SoulBiter]

Some good games over the weekend.

Pats always seem to find ways that arent quite 'kosher' to win gamesThis is a common theme for the Pats, they skirt the rules in some way, the rules are re-written in the offseason to make what they did illegal.

The Cowboys were a heartbreaker for Dez... however he did boggle that ball a bit and the ball did touch the ground. The officials ruled correctly.

Peyton needs to retire... he didnt look good in this game and every shot he took down field was inaccurate.

GB won but Aaron didnt look as good as the media would make out. All they could talk about was how accurate he is, but in the first half he was 9 for 17.... come on.

Next week:

Colts beat Pats
Seahawks beat GB

Superbowl will be Colts and Hawks.

[dlbpharmd]

It's sad, but I think we've seen the end of the Peyton era. The Broncos are due to pay him $19 million to play next year, and I don't see Elway forking over that much money on an aging QB. Getting Peyton to play for the Broncos was an interesting experiment that ultimately failed.

[wayfriend]

Pats always seem to find ways that arent quite 'kosher' to win gamesThis is a common theme for the Pats, they skirt the rules in some way, the rules are re-written in the offseason to make what they did illegal.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Is Gronk too big or something? Are you not allowed to score on a lateral?

The Cowboys were a heartbreaker for Dez... however he did boggle that ball a bit and the ball did touch the ground. The officials ruled correctly.

I didn't watch that game, but it seems like the right call to me, too. It's being hyped as unfair, I don't know why.

[SoulBiter]

Pats always seem to find ways that arent quite 'kosher' to win gamesThis is a common theme for the Pats, they skirt the rules in some way, the rules are re-written in the offseason to make what they did illegal.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Is Gronk too big or something? Are you not allowed to score on a lateral?

The Pats were making last minute substitutions on eligible receivers (and declaring who would be eligible) and then immediately snapping the ball so the defense couldn't line up with the receivers properly. There is nothing currently in the rules that says you cant do that, but if you asked 30 NFL coaches if you could do that, they would 99% of the time say...no thats an illegal substitution. The spirit of the rule of declaring is to allow the defense to make adjustments along with the offense.

[Cybrweez]

Problem w/Broncos is, if not Peyton, then who? But he certainly was off target yesterday, and over last 5 weeks or so. Strange such a drop off, I think you can try one more year as you groom someone or trade. Limited options tho.

I didn't like the Dez call. Hate the Cowboys, but I thought he had possession and made football move. I mean, 3 feet on the ground, then his knee, then ball hits ground. If that's not a catch, rules need to be modified. I'm certainly ok w/the fact that a ref's call made a huge impact against them, when they were beneficiaries of same previous week.

If Rodgers has calve problem, which I'm sure will be the case, I don't see how they beat the Hawks.

I think Pats will be ok against Indy.

I hope they can handle the Hawks. Pats' offensive line isn't great, no run game, only Gronk really as playmaker. Tough defense may be their downfall (which Indy and GB don't have).

[Vraith]

It's sad, but I think we've seen the end of the Peyton era. The Broncos are due to pay him $19 million to play next year, and I don't see Elway forking over that much money on an aging QB. Getting Peyton to play for the Broncos was an interesting experiment that ultimately failed.

I'm not quite sure I'd call it a failure, but yea. [and it bugs me that his brother, not even 1/2 the QB he is, has more rings.]
A lot of money. And rumors that lots of peeps---coaches as well as players---are probably moving on. His best chance is gone...is it worth it to anyone for him to stay?

SB: yea, Rodgers didn't look even close to himself till near end of 3rd. But he does have that calf thing. He can't beat the Hawks next week looking like he did this week.
[I don't think they can, anyway. I don't want to pick the Hawks next week, but I am.]

As far as Pats being not "kosher"...a history, yea---but not this time. If there was a problem, it was the officials [which apparently the league is looking at].
This made the most sense to me, after all the chatter:

Is it deceptive, as Ravens coach John Harbaugh alleged? Sure it is. But so is a play-action pass, a draw play,[[SNIPPED a list of about a dozen "trick" plays]] every pre-snap look aimed at making the opponent think the play is something other than what it will be [[SNIPPED some more trick plays no one whines about]]
The Vereen-ineligible play is legal, as long as the otherwise eligible player reports as ineligible. Which Vereen did. The question then becomes whether the referee properly informed the Ravens about Vereen’s ineligibility. Which the league will explore.

If there's a rule about the situation, it seems likely someone tried something like that before...
But, what I really wanted to say [cuz of what you said about making things illegal the next year, and the quote above] is it might be a fun project for a deep football geek to research and write about how often in the past this kind of "not kosher" play got invented, and annoyed peeps---but later it becomes just a part of the arsenal that everyone uses/trains for. [like most of the plays I snipped]. Someone probably has already done such a thing. I think it would be fun/interesting to know.

HEY! I got all the winners RIGHT! [even if scores were a bit wonky] That never happens! [[I give in, and pick who I want to win instead of who probably will too often]]
So...already said Hawks over GB. Call it 24-14.
Pats over Colts. 31-17.

[wayfriend]

The Pats were making last minute substitutions on eligible receivers (and declaring who would be eligible) and then immediately snapping the ball so the defense couldn't line up with the receivers properly.

Oh, that. I had to look that up, I don't remember anything during the game.

Is it deceptive, as Ravens coach John Harbaugh alleged? Sure it is. But so is a play-action pass, a draw play, a flea flicker, a statue of liberty, a lateral pass to a receiver who throws the ball to another receiver, the zone blitz, the fake blitz, the delayed blitz, every pre-snap look aimed at making the opponent think the play is something other than what it will be, a fake punt, a fake field goals, a surprise onside kick from conventional kick formation, and a punt returner pretending the ball is coming to him when it’s actually going to a guy left alone on the other side of the field.

The Vereen-ineligible play is legal, as long as the otherwise eligible player reports as ineligible. Which Vereen did.

Edit: oops, sorry Vraith. See you posted the same thing.

In other words ... it'd be a brilliant play if it was anyone else who did it. It's just those you-know-what grapes.

Did it change the game?

Does it balance out the no-call when Gronkowski was held by Mosley? Even the NBC announcers talked about that one.

BTW, After that Ravens game, I am very glad we're skipping the Brady/Manning bowl this year. I don't need the stress.

[rdhopeca]

The Pats were making last minute substitutions on eligible receivers (and declaring who would be eligible) and then immediately snapping the ball so the defense couldn't line up with the receivers properly.

Actually, according to someone who timed it, on the three plays in question, from the moment the refereee ANNOUNCED IN THE STADIUM the ineligible player, the Ravens had 7 seconds, 10 seconds, and 7 seconds to do something about it. Time out, whatever.

That's not "immediate".

[SoulBiter]

Its also not as much time as you think it is

The Patriots ran those three plays between six and 10 seconds after Vinovich identified the ineligible players over the PA. Harbaugh then admitted that he deliberately took the penalty to call attention to how impossible of a task this was. While Vinovich’s crew told Harbaugh after the drive that they would give his team the appropriate time to make those subs, the Patriots scored a touchdown on the drive and then never went back to the tactic again.

There’s nothing illegal about what the Patriots were doing. Running unbalanced lines, moving blockers around a formation, and confusing a defense is all legal, and given the importance of the moment, this was a great time to unleash something confusing. At the same time, defenses are supposed to have the right to make substitutions if the offense makes a late change, with the umpire standing over the football until the defense has had the opportunity to substitute accordingly.

The loophole in that logic comes from the fact that the Patriots really weren’t making mass subs; they were replacing Kline, an offensive lineman, with a skill position player, Hoomanawanui, and then repositioning their skill position players in ways that were deliberately confusing to the defense. The Patriots weren’t technically doing anything illegal, because the rulebook doesn’t account for a change in receiver eligibility, even if the spirit of the law would seem to suggest that the Ravens should have had more of a chance to identify the Patriots’ formation. I suspect that the league will quietly tell the Patriots to cut that out and make an according change to the rulebook this offseason.

[rdhopeca]

I was in Gillette Stadium Saturday night for three such plays run by the Patriots on the same third-quarter scoring drive, but I didn’t fully understand what had happened during the game. I didn’t understand the genesis of it until a friend of mine said it was what Alabama did to LSU in overtime this season. I found the play on YouTube, watched it, and the light bulb went off: Belichick and Saban are very close. There is no doubt in my mind, based on the duplication of the play, that the Patriots got this play from Alabama. And good for them. It’s perfectly legal, despite Baltimore’s protestations to the contrary, and though officiating czar Dean Blandino told me Sunday the league is going to examine the play (actually, the Patriots completed three passes, for 11, 14 and 16 yards on the three plays they ran), what rule can the NFL change?

Baltimore coach John Harbaugh protested the play because he thought the Ravens weren’t given time to “match up” after the Patriots made their switch. Here’s how the rule reads: “If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions. While in the process of a substitution (or simulated substitution), the offense is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball in an obvious attempt to cause a defensive foul (i.e., too many men on the field). If, in the judgment of the officials, this occurs, the following procedure will apply:

“(a) The Umpire will stand over the ball until the Referee deems that the defense has had a reasonable time to complete its substitutions.

“(b) If a play takes place and a defensive foul for too many players on the field results, no penalties will be enforced, except for personal fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct, and the down will be replayed. At this time, the Referee will notify the head coach that any further use of this tactic will result in a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.”

I timed the three plays in question to see if Baltimore had been unfairly disadvantaged by the Patriot ploy, using NFL Game Rewind as my resource. Playing the NBC telecast back, I clocked the amount of time between referee Bill Vinovich’s in-stadium announcement of the “non-eligible player” (it sounded like that was what Vinovich called the spread-wide faux fifth lineman). By my count, seven, 10 and seven seconds elapsed between the announcements and the snap of the ball.

“The whole issue with Baltimore,’’ Blandino said, “is they felt they weren’t given enough time [to match up]. We will review the three plays, but it appears from a mechanical standpoint that the announcement was made properly, the defense was notified, and the proper mechanics were executed.’’

As Blandino explained, the offense must have seven men on the line of scrimmage before the snap of the ball. The outside two players are eligible receivers. In this case, wideout Brandon LaFell was split left and wideout Julian Edelman split right, with Edelman outside Vereen, who was the ineligible fifth offensive lineman. “Everyone on the line between the two outside receivers, all five other players, have to be ineligible,’’ said Blandino. (This, of course, doesn’t count receivers or backs in the slot, a step or two behind the line.)

Peter King and the NFL agree that it's an legal and acceptable amount of time. More time than you get on other perfectly legal trick plays that don't make themselves quite so obvious pre-snap, like a lateral followed by a pass to a receiver.

Harbaugh needs to coach his team better.

mmqb.si.com/2015/01/12/nfl-playoffs-cow ... irement/2/

[SoulBiter]

I agree that its legal and I never said different. Don't be surprised if that's a penalty next year.

I agree, they should coach better. Frankly that last throw that Flacco made was stupid. They are on the Pats 35 with like a 1:42 left on the clock on a second down and throw into double coverage... why would he do that? Even if they caught it, you left enough time on the clock for Brady to come back down the field and score. It made more sense to keep getting first downs and burn the clock and look for a better play instead of forcing a bad one. They even had a time-out in their back pocket.

[wayfriend]

I agree that its legal and I never said different. Don't be surprised if that's a penalty next year.

Alabama made a similar play against LSU a few months ago.
Philly made a similar play in 2013 against Washington.

No one wanted to change the rules then. It's only bad now because the Patriots did it.

And so we don't have to discuss how the Pats came back twice from a 14-point deficit, or how holding the Ravens to a field goal that one time was the deciding factor, or how cool the Edelman/Amendola double-pass play was, or how the Pats didn't make a single rushing play in the second half and still squeaked it out, or how Flacco threw a second interception that threw away their chance to come back.

[Cail]

I don't do sour grapes, and I don't bitch and whine about officiating.

I'm just saying that it's....odd that the Ravens were kicking the Pats all over the field the entire game and running the ball at will. Suddenly through these three plays, a few questionable penalties, and a complete cessation of the run game, somehow the Pats win the game.

Game's over, I'm not pissed (it's a child's game, only children get pissed about it). It just seems as though the NFL is moving in the direction of the WWE.....Where there's a script to the outcome.

As I think I said somewhere upthread, the Ravens had no business making the playoffs this year. The secondary was nonexistent and the offense was inconsistent. That said they've got a lot to be proud of. They completely dominated the Steelers last week, and manhandled the #1 seed for 55 of 60 minutes this week. That ain't too shabby.

[SoulBiter]

I agree that its legal and I never said different. Don't be surprised if that's a penalty next year.

Alabama made a similar play against LSU a few months ago.
Philly made a similar play in 2013 against Washington.

No one wanted to change the rules then. It's only bad now because the Patriots did it.

And so we don't have to discuss how the Pats came back twice from a 14-point deficit, or how holding the Ravens to a field goal that one time was the deciding factor, or how cool the Edelman/Amendola double-pass play was, or how the Pats didn't make a single rushing play in the second half and still squeaked it out, or how Flacco threw a second interception that threw away their chance to come back.

Im sure I posted about Flacco's interception in my last post.

Frankly that last throw that Flacco made was stupid. They are on the Pats 35 with like a 1:42 left on the clock on a second down and throw into double coverage... why would he do that? Even if they caught it, you left enough time on the clock for Brady to come back down the field and score. It made more sense to keep getting first downs and burn the clock and look for a better play instead of forcing a bad one. They even had a time-out in their back pocket.

The rest of it, the Pats are way down on my list of teams to root for. My daughter and her BF are Patriots fans....but I have never been. That being said, if I was a fan, all those things you mentioned would have been something I would bring up. But for me, I think the Ravens had this game won and allowed it to get away. That last pass was unnecessary and I'm sure Flacco would love to have that one back.

Go Colts!!!

[wayfriend]

Go Colts!!!