Decent game yesterday but unfortunately came out on the short end of the stick this week. Here are my general thoughts/comments:
1. Squandered opportunities. I am thinking less and less of Kareem Moore. He takes poor angles when tackling and has missed a few INTs that he could have gotten. Last night, he had one right in his hands/chest that he dropped and another one that would have been much tougher but could have been made. If he makes the first one, it kills that drive. Indy ended up scoring a TD on that drive. If he makes the second one, it would have saved a FG. That's 10 points we could have prevented.
2. Run the ball. Torain was effective running the ball although there were a few times he didn't hit the right hole but all in all he did a decent job. The Indy defense is bad at the run game and I just felt that we didn't run as much as we should have.
3. Defense could not keep up with Manning's pace. Manning would run a play and then immediately get his team to the line and run the next play. He did a great job of keeping our defense out of sync and also snapping the ball quickly before the crowd could get loud enough to be a factor. It was the mark of a true veteran that understands the game better than almost every other QB.
4. Haynesworth/Dockery: Not sure what is going on with these two. I like Shanny and there is a tremendous difference b/t this year's team compared to last year's team and Shanny deserves much of that credit. However, I am a little confused as to why Haynesworth and/or Dock are not playing. Haynesworth wanted to play and we could have used his emotion of losing his brother in last night's game. We also could have used his abilities to get a push up the middle but he was made inactive. The reason was that Shanny said that the game plan was already in place before Haynesworth returned to practice on Thursday. Okay. It's not like we totally revamp the defense in one week. There is no question Haynesworth could have played if the coaches wanted him to. We certainly could've used him. Also, Dock. He was made inactive. What is that about? I am not a big fan of Lichtensteiger (although I like to yell his name in a German accent). Dock has started like 112 games. The guy knows what he is doing. Sure, he may not be as athletic as Lichtensteiger but I have to believe he is the better overall blocker and to make him inactive? Again, what is that about?
5. Clock management. On our last TD drive, I was a little confused as to why we didn't show more urgency. In the end, it was fine because we scored with 2:45 left and had all of our timeouts and the 2 minute warning but still seemed like we should have been in a hurry up.
6. Special teams were good. The coverages are excellent. Banks looks like Devin Hester lite. The guy looks like he is going to break one any time he touches it. I will say that I didn't like his effort on the deep ball thrown to him. Seems like he could have made a better effort to go after that ball and possibly make a play. Hunter the Punter is a tremendous improvement over Bidwell. Gano is falling out of favor with me. Bad game from him last night. He missed the 48 yd FG. Sure, it was a longer FG but he has missed a couple other long ones and while I don't expect him to make all of those, I would like to see a better percentage of makes from that range. Also, his kickoffs weren't as deep as they have been. He needs to start stepping up.
7. Defense was okay. Again, gave up a ton of yards but only gave up 7 points in the second half. We also knocked out a key player with another big hit. Seems like every week, we knock someone from the opposition out. Osakpo made a big play in stripping the ball from Manning for a turnover but in general we needed more pressure (again, points back to the need for Haynesworth). We blitzed a little more in the second half but Manning is too good in reading defenses and is able to release the ball quickly. We also need to hang on to those INT possibilities. Those are difference making plays and we let them literally slip through our fingers.
All in all, a decent game. We hung tough and we certainly don't seem like the pushover we have been in recent years. Unfortunately, both the Eagles and Giants won so we find ourselves one game behind those teams in the East but still to be 3-3 at this point in the season, I'll take it.
HAIL SKINS!!!
30 comments:
I think it was a good game and glad that the Skins were right in it at the end. I believe the Skins are getting slightly better each week, which is a good thing. I'm happy that they are still in it through 6 games. It is clear that they can play with any team in the league and have a chance to win.
I don't like how many yards the defense gives up. They need to do something about that. Also, I'm discouraged that Kareem Moore has developed hands like Carlos Rogers. In playing against a QB that is one of the best ever, they really needed those picks.
Sometimes the offense and play calling looks very refreshing and other times you question what the hell they are thinking. It still bugs me how McNabb approaches the two minute type drives with such a lazy approach. Maybe that's just his way to stay calm and keep others calm. It could have worked out last night, but it still seems to be a weakness. The solution of course is to not get yourself in those situations, but the league has created so much samitry, there are several games that were either in overtime or decided right at the end of the game.
I know the word is symmetry, but I like to say samitry because most of the teams end up with close to the same results.
The word is parity.
JKSD - the CJ catch rule that you have been bitching about for weeks applied to Carlos Rogers drop. The rule worked as it should and was an easy call.
Without the rule one ref may have said catch and fumble, another may have said no catch. Instead we had a clear, consistent ruling. If you look out over the season there are many instances where this happens - you just want consistency.
I didn't have a problem with the two minute offense once we got into a two minute offense. I was confused as to why we didn't get into the two minute offense on our scoring drive. Although in the end, I think it worked out for us as there was plenty of time for us to get the ball back given that we had all 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning.
I agree with some of the playcalling. On I believe our second TD drive, we were in their red zone and ran on first down for an 8 yard gain setting up a 2nd and 2 and we did play action rollout but the WR was covered so McNabb threw it away setting up a 3rd and 2. We ended up converting it and getting a TD but I was still wondering why we didn't try and run. We had two downs to get 2 yards. When we passed on 2nd down, and if we had not converted the third down, people (including me) would have been very upset.
There was also a 3rd and 1 late in the game (I believe this was on the drive where Addai fumbled) and instead of running hard up the gut, we did a pitch out for a loss. Bad call. Also, didn't like the 4th and 10 call late in the game (deep ball to Armstrong).
Robs, I know about the Rogers play/call. Al Michaels brought it up last night. Still don't like the rule.
So you thought it should be Colts ball after a fumble?
Based on the "CJ" rule, it was obvious that it was not a fumble.
HOWEVER, it did look like he had possession with two feet down and then fell backward and his elbow hit the ground causing the ball to come loose. If the ground is allowed to cause a fumble, then I would say fumble.
Without the rule you would rule fumble. I wouldn't necessarily rule fumble. Therein lies the problem that the CJ rule solves.
The biggest difference ive seen this year from previous years in the Dan Snyder era is that the team doesnt give up. They keep coming. Even down 17-7 with Peyton Manning ready to put it away, the team keeps finding a way to come back. In past years I felt like theyd give up after being down. Especially being down to superior teams, it was like theyd get overwhelmed and just give up. Its def different now. They showed that last week against the Packers being down 10-0 with Aaron Rodgers setting up to turn the game in to a blowout and this week. Unfortunately for the Skins, they lost but still a good fight. The team is playing a full 60 minutes every game. I like that.
Peyton Manning is amazing. I enjoy watching him execute that offense as much as I enjoy watching Favre and the Vikings win. Well maybe not that much, but being a fan of football, I really appreciate the skill and level of preperation and understanding he has for that position.
It was a tough game to watch because the lead was just out of raech for just about the entire game. We made some great defensive stops to have the Colts go 3 and out on a few possessions, but then Manning would pick us apart on other drives. The dropped interceptions are back-breakers. You can feel the air go out of the stadium everytime we drop an interception. It's totally deflating and Manning and Co. took advantage of our blown chances.
Overall, I'm happy with where the team is relative to last year, but now that we're able to compete in these games, it would be nice to win. The novelty of being satisfied with just being competitive is wearing thin with me.
I'm a little irritated with how Shanny's dealing with Buttersworth. If he's available to play, put him in. If he's not going to play, trade him. This is getting stupid.
Robs brings up Los' dropped INT...There's a difference between the two plays that can only be identified by how you interpret the plays. Rogers caught the ball and the ground clearly caused him to lose posession. CJ caught the ball and "dropped" the ball during his attempt to get off the ground. One could argue that the rule can be changed to be subject to the Ref's interpretation to allow common sense to overrule situations where the current rule fails...Not sure if that's the best approach because the ref's don't display much common sense.
Deeps - you would have given the ball to the Colts? That was the right call in your mind?
Deeps - my question above is if the CJ rule did not exist. Obviously the right call was made given the rule.
I was at the game sitting around a bunch of fans who thought the review would result in a fumble and I had to explain to them that, per the CJ rule, Rogers did not complete the play and that it would be called incomplete. The rule is clear and it makes it easy to determine whether or not a catch was made. That being said, I don't like the fact that common sense is ignored when determining whether or not a catch is made.
No, I would not have called the play a catch because Rogers hit the ground and lost control of the ball AS A DIRECT RESULT of the contact with the ground. CJ did not lose control as a result of contact with the ground. He lost control as a result of trying to get up off the ground. If he stayed on the ground, it would have been called a catch. If Rogers had held on to the ball, then rolled over and lost control of the ball while trying to get up, then it clearly would be a fumble. He never got that far into the process. There is a distinction here, which is what I pointed out in my previous post.
Robs...The CJ play was an anomaly. It's a one in a million play. We'll probably never see another play where a player attempts to use the ball as a crutch to get up off the field after catching it, and then lose control of the ball in the process. The point is, the refs should be given the freedom to make a common sense judgment call if a freak situation occurs when the result of enforcing the rule fails to make sense.
Deeps, Rogers took 3 steps and then hit the ground - not as a result of contact with an opposing player. According to the CJ rule we agree it was no catch - simple ruling given the rule.
However, Deeps and JKSD you can see the problem if you eliminate the rule or just let refs use "common sense." Both of you understand football fairly well and you two differ on what the ruling should have been without the CJ rule. Deeps says no catch/no fumble. JKSD says catch and fumble.
Without the current rule there would be inconsistent rulings by refs.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, I REST MY CASE FOR THE VALUE OF THE RULE.
GAME, SET, MATCH!
Robs, don't be a dick. Deeps and I largely agree. When we spoke, I said that I am not fully aware of the rulings on the ground causing the ball to come out. As I recall the play, it looked as though he had possession and the ground caused the ball to be jarred loose. Deepie and I agree on that. Deepie said he "would not have called the play a catch because Rogers hit the ground and lost control of the ball AS A DIRECT RESULT of the contact with the ground." If that is the rule, I would agree with him.
So cut with your Game, Set, Match, B.S. Deepie and I agree.
Robs...Why is everything either black or white with you? The rule has merit. It makes plays like the Rogers play easy to identify as an incomplete. The CJ play symbolizes a loop hole where the rule doesn't work. If you would take a moment to understand what I'm saying instead of assuming that I'm saying get rid of the rule, you'd know that my position is that the rule should be enforced, but it should be reviewable and the refs should have the authority to overturn the ruling if the fumble is not a direct result of contact with the ground.
99.99% of the plays will be ruled just as they do today. The one-offs like CJ's "dropped" TD would be overturned and the spirit of the game would no longer be negatively impacted.
Here's a scenario to explain why refs should be able to overturn an incomplete ruling.
Bears are down by 2 with 30 seconds to go against the 'Skins. Johnnie Knox goes up to catch a ball at midfield. He makes a miracle catch, contorts his body to protect the ball, and holds on as he hits the ground. He doesn't get touched by a defender, and in his hurry to get back to his position as the Pears run the 2-minute drill, he rolls over, puts the ball down while he's still on the ground, and leaves the ball on the field as he sprints out toward the left sideline for the next play.
According to the current rule, just like the CJ play, this would result in an incomplete pass...But is it? Ruling it incomplete would be completely unfair to the defense who should be able to grab the ball and take possession.
If the refs are given the freedom to make a judgment call in these situations, situations like this would be treated more fairly and would maintain the integrity of the game. CJ would have scored a TD. Rogers' play would have still been an incompletion. All of it makes sense...except to Pears Fan.
Deeps, I totally understand what you are saying, but like I have just pointed out you and JKSD differ on what happened with the Rogers play and presumably would have ruled it differently had you or him been a ref - that is why it is not reviewable and there is no need to review it.
You make a mistake by saying the ground cannot cause a fumble. Actually, it would have been a live ball if you accept that Rogers taking three steps is enough for possession.
The ground can cause a fumble if a player is not brought down by contact. For example, if a running back is in the open field and trips on his own, hits the ground, and the ball pops out it is a live ball. That is basically what happened to Rogers IF you believe he had possession.
The question that you two may or may not agree on is whether Rogers had enough possession. My reading of what Deeps says is that he did not have enough possession, but JKSD seems to think he did. It looked to me like he took three steps with the ball in his hands and in full control of the ball.
If I am wrong about what your interpretations are then you can correct me. Maybe you both think it was clearly possession and he dropped it and it should have been a live ball. That is not what I think Deeps would rule.
In any case, the CJ rule makes it very, very simple for a ref to decide how to rule such plays. Changing the rule to accomodate a play like CJ's makes little sense when the alternative is that you would open up controversy, ionconsistency, and confusion about what a ref considers possession/non-possession, fumble/no fumble on other plays.
Deeps, the act of putting the ball down on the field would be a controlled act. Knox would have controlled the ball through the conclusion of the play.
The ball popped out of CJ's hand at the end - and was not under his control to the full conclusion of his fall/roll.
Had CJ just put the ball down in the end zone it likely would have been ruled a TD. The problem is that he did not maintain control through continuation/conclusion of the play.
Sounds like Deepie thought he had possession but he believes the ground caused the ball to be jarred loose and he believes that the ground cannot cause a fumble. Deepie, is that correct?
Deepie's resolution makes pretty good sense. It sounds like acceptance of the CJ rule but still allowing for refs to judge specific cases with a bit of latitude and common sense.
Robs,
As JKSD pointed out, he and I agree that the Rogers play was incomplete. There is no disparity in our interpretation of the play.
The Rogers play should always be called an incompletion because he lost control of the ball in the act of completing the play. Three steps stumbling to the ground immediately after making the catch is completely different than a running back tripping on his own in the open field and losing the ball when he hits the ground.
In my opinion, this is quite clear and is easily resolvable. If the refs can apply a little logic on top of the rule, the CJ play would be ruled a catch in the endzone for a TD. My Knox example is the same situation in the field of play where it would be a fumble. The Rogers incompletion would be upheld by the current rule and is not subject to the ref's interpretation because the ball was lost due to impact with the ground in the act of completing the play.
GAME, SET, MATCH!
Robs...If CJ just put the ball down in the endzone while he was still on the ground before the ref signaled a TD, by rule it would have been incomplete. It would not have "likely" been called a TD. This is essentially what happened. The ball may have popped out of his hand, but it was after the catch and during his attempt to get up off the ground.
JKSD...I viewed the CJ play as a completed act of possessing the ball and a "fumble" in the endzone as he tried to get up. As you know, you can't fumble the ball in the endzone, so it should have been a TD.
If I were the ref, I would have been fired by now because I would have ruled Catch and TD and wouldnt have reviewed the play, infact I would have penalized the CareBears 15 yards just for having 11 men on the field. It would have been a win for the Lions over the CareBears.
Really though I dont think that CJ play was a catch. 99 times out of a 100 CJ would finish the catch process there. It looks like he loses the ball cus it hits the ground. His hand actually flinches cus he lost the ball. He almost played it off really well but unfortunately for the Lions Packers and Vikings, the Refs have review.
Deeps - you and I would rule differently without the CJ rule and I am fairly confident that JKSD would also rule differently from you. Correct me if I am wrong JKSD.
Deeps, let me be clear because I think we may be mixing up the two plays.
Without the CJ rule, I would say that Rogers caught the ball and fumbled.
I think you would rule that it was not a catch (again without the CJ rule).
Is that correct?
As for the Knox example, I simply do not agree with you. If Knox catches the ball as you described and then places it on the ground under his own control that is a catch. Had CJ done exactly the same thing it would have been a catch. He dropped the ball - it clearly pops out of his hand accidentally. He did not just flip the ball out or let go of the ball after he made the "catch" - it literally pops out of his hand. Look at the replay again.
I maintain that CJ completed the act of catching the ball before it popped out of his hand.
The Knox example is correct if it happens quickly enough that the catch, fall to the ground, and act of getting up and leaving the ball on the ground happen in a fluid motion...just like what happened with CJ.
Question...Do you think the Rogers play involves the same set of circumstances as the CJ play? If so, we're going to get nowhere with this.
Deeps, let's not bother arguing about new made up scenarios (i.e., Knox example). If it was a fluid motion and he did what CJ did then it would obviously be incomplete - the CJ rule applies. That would be the right call.
With respect to CJ, most people would say catch, but there is no question that CJ accidently dropped the ball. As a result, there are some who would rule incomplete even without the CJ rule (JSR - who is by no means a Bears fan - appears to believe this). The fact that there would be inconsistencies in the ruling is why I like the CJ rule.
With respect to the Rogers play, I don't understand what "circumstances" you are referring to. Obviously it was a defensive player who wasn't in the end zone. Frankly, I don't see how it is relevant.
Assuming there was no CJ rule, do you look at the Rogers play and think it was an incomplete pass? I believe that is your view, but correct me if I am wrong. If your view was that it was an incomplete pass, then that differs from the view that I have and that I believe JKSD has. Without the CJ rule, we would rule that a catch and fumble. Again, this points to the reason the CJ rule works to eliminate inconsistency.
Frankly, I lost track of this discussion and have lost interest in it.
However, for certain reasons, I find it necessary to comment.
Regarding the CJ rule, I don't like it.
Regarding the CJ catch, I thought it was a catch but I TOTALLY understand that it was not a catch based on the rule.
Regarding Rogers play, the way I remember it is that it looked like he had possession and had two feet on the ground and then the ball was jarred loose when he hit the ground. I am not fully aware of the rules on the ground causing fumbles. If the ground can cause a fumble, then it would appear I am saying that it would be a fumble (again, if you take the CJ rule away). That would have been my call and I would be okay with the fumble because it would have been the correct call in my mind.
All this said, I would be okay with Deepie's recommendation or something similar to that. Basically, have the CJ rule but allow the refs to have some latitude/flexibility with it and use common sense to make certain calls like the CJ play. That is essentially what Bob Costas offered in his first week of NFL Sunday Night football halftime op/ed.
I think I am done with this now so if anyone wants to talk further with me, take it up with my arse because it is the only one that gives a shart anymore.
You have essentially confirmed why we have the CJ rule and why it works. It eliminates inconsistency in rulings and puts everyone on equal footing.
You and Deeps disagree on how you would rule without the CJ rule. I think you both understand football but your common sense differs on the same play.
Way to go JKSD...you just made Robs' argument stronger...Nice work.
I'll end it with this...The difference between the CJ play and the Rogers play is obvious to me. Rogers fell and lost control of the ball in the process of making the play. Incomplete. No question.
CJ caught the ball and lost it AFTER he completed the catch during his attempt to get up off the ground. Calling an incompletion is not in the best interest of the game, but it is in accordance with the rule, so the refs did the right thing.
Given the differences in opinion, it's clear that we have come up with nothing that can resolve the issue, so the current rule is still the best answer to this problem.
That's all I've said from the beginning. Thank you!
Post a Comment