Rochesterfan

That is how Oliver got hurt against the Rams. He is making a tackle and the OL with head of steam drives right into the back of the RB bowling the defender over and Oliver got his foot caught.

Personally - I wish they would go back to making it illegal. I hate the way it looks and then it creates these big scrums with both sides just pushing. It is also more dangerous - where a play like against the Rams - Oliver trying to make a stop and the players get steamrolled by a OL running up to drive him forward. I also hate the stupid narrative of the commentators - oh look at this guy continue to drive his legs and drive the pile forward - where 3 OL gab the pile with LBs and DBs and drive it forward and they act like the RB had anything to do with it. Go back to not allowing the OL to touch the player and drive it forward and they can’t pull guys either.

They still could - the Josh Johnson pick-up was started prior to the Mayfield report. The 2 do not necessarily have anything to do with each other. The 49ers needed someone immediately with knowledge of the system- hence Johnson. Mayfield might be a multi week look in case Purdy struggles.

correct - the Panthers portion of the contract. By cutting him the contract does not void though. If he clears waivers and is then signed - the Panthers would be responsible for the remaining contract minus any off sets. It is a bigger deal for the guys speculating that Indy will grab Mayfield and then cut Ryan to get to SF as Ryan has a larger contract to bear including money next year.

I believe the contract voids if he clears Waivers - if the 49ers (or any team) claim him - I believe they assume the contract he is currently playing on. Therefore - it would clear the remaining salary from the Panthers and the 49ers would assume their portion of the contract. If he clears waivers - the Panthers are responsible for his contract minus any offsets in the new contract he signs. That would all depend upon how the contract is structured.

It is an interesting thought. The question is is guaranteed money for next year. I believe the Colts guaranteed 10-12 million of his 2023 Salary upon acquiring him - so I can see getting rid of Ryan, but it is not cheap and he is under a huge contract number for next year that I am not sure a team like the 49ers want. Therefore he would have to pass through waivers and then the Colts are forced to payout the contract. Plus Mayfield is not under contract for next year - so you are cutting and paying one guy to pick up a 5 game QB that will not be back? Seems to risky - keep Ryan and try to trade him in the off season to get rid of the salary. Sign Mayfield if they want - just to get him in the building.

The biggest issue I see with the Chiefs (and I said it prior to the season and still think it is true) is that their OL is built to be a power running OL and they are barely adequate in pass protection. This would be fine if they chose to run, but like Buffalo they choose to pass 60+% of the time. The Bills and the Bengals both got pressure rushing 3 and 4 guys through both the inside and edge on many pass rushes. Without Hill, the Chiefs lack that one big explosive player and that has turned them into a team that must March down the field in 8-10+ play drives and with 7 or 8 guys in coverage that is tough to do. The loss of Hill also means that when teams do decide to blitz (and I believe he has been blitzed at a higher rate than in the past) - there is not that punishment factor where they slip it out and Hill just takes it for 40 or 50 yards - now that is an 8 yard completion and the defense says - I can risk that if it leads to a couple incompletions and drive stops.

Sorry, but this is totally incorrect. Again watch the video on page 1. Clearly at 0:02 second Johnson turns sideways and his right arm is under the Pats players arm/pads. He clearly is tossing the player down. At that point the Pats player is not even facing the punter - he is 100% facing Johnson on his left and his shoulders and head are starting downwards with his lower body coming up. The player is clearly turned from a straight on rush into Johnson to being twisted sideways and rolling into Martin. I would agree with you if the Pats player came straight through and his arms and head were moving straight toward the punter, but that is not what happens. He makes contact with Johnson and is turned completely sideways and he rolls into Martin. Honestly watching the play - I don’t think his intent was to try to block the kick - it was get into contact with Johnson and blocking him from heading downfield.

I think with the season basically over and a QB that has been in concussion protocol multiple times, has a bad neck, and needs Elbow surgery - I think the coach is saying - let’s get you out and finally get you healthy. Him playing or not has little impact at this point and it would not surprise me to see them leave Stafford on IR for the rest of the season and suggest he go get surgery and come back in 2023. To me it is like Von. He could probably play next week with a brace, but why - this is not when you need him. Put him on IR - give him additional time with no pressure and have him as healthy as possible for the Post Season - when you need a maximum of 4 games out of him.

The 2 make contact and Johnson pulls and slides off - pulling the defender down as he disengages o run down field. You easily see the Patriot player coming straight up the field and as he comes off Johnson he is sideways and rolling. The action of Johnson blocking and disengaging causes the player to hit Martin. I have no issue with it not being called. This happens where guys engage briefly and the offense guy uses the momentum to toss/fling a guy passed and head downfield. I actually was surprised they did not call Johnson for a hold on the play instead. You can clearly see at the 0:02 second mark on the video on Page 1 - Johnson engages and turn sideways with a hand under the shoulder and flings the Patriot. I also think the Patriot uses that momentum to purposely roll into the punter because he knows it will not draw a flag.

Just take 2 seconds to listen to the players - my god don’t be dumb. They would literally take players that got knocked out - give them smelling salts and put them back in the game. That guy is out 1-2 weeks minimum now because of the past injury and CTE suits. Kelly talks all the time about getting hit in the Super Bowl and playing for over a Quarter and having no recollection because of a concussion. The offensive players knew he was concussed because he was struggling to even get proper plays out. He isn’t alone - all around the league guys would “get their bell rung” and be expected to not miss time. The outrage for what happened to Tua never occurred in the past - literally guys with active concussions would be put right back into the game. DB’s and Safeties would head hunt WRs - guys like Atwood would just destroy guys with shots around the head. It isn’t even a question about whether there were more - the guys that played took and gave hits that would be illegal and players played with concussions and other injuries because of the manhood code and the fact that missing games meant a chance at losing your job when the money wasn’t enough to retire on. The stories are all over - if you listen and the NFL points out all the time the reason for changes. If you go back to the late 90’s and early 2000’s with rules like “in the grasp” they were trying to reduce QB injuries as the league was seeing many teams lose starting QBs to injury do to hits both high and low. They started to afford extra protections and allowed QBs to throw the ball away outside the pocket as owners wanted to protect assets. Then came more WR protections and defenseless WR rules and DE protections by eliminating chop and cut blocks especially on engaged rushers. The NFL followed that up with RB protections on lowering the helmet to hit or when running to protect players. Are you suggesting they put these rules in place without data on injury history and concussion data? The NFL made huge money on the hits of players like Lott and Atwater, but realized the fans did not leave as they removed those plays and the increased scoring added fans. No one is expecting DBs to allow a catch - the target zone is just smaller than it used to be. If Hamlin hits the WR in the mid section with his shoulder - he is probably fine, but that is not what he did. Big hits still happen, but the NFL is using penalties and ejections to move those hits lower - once they stop the high shots - you will see them legislate against more shots at the knees or below - just as they did with QBs and then blocking.

I don’t know, but I suspect the coaches booth at Gillette Stadium is high and off to the side - so he is looking at spotting and substitutions to help Ken. Some stadiums - you need a spotter to help ensure exactly what is happening as your angle and distance make it hard.

Nope - Popularity has increased even with the league legislating out the big hits of the players you mentioned. Changing the hits has allowed many players to stay healthy and continuing to play, which was something the fans liked and actually demanded, but the popularity has risen exponentially and created more exposure. The injuries like ACLs still happen, but watch QBs like Kelly get killed standing in the pocket. Watch the WRs get knocked out going across the middle. Watch the DE’s that used to get cut by OL all game long. They have purposely legislated the game to prevent massive hits because even if you don’t hit them in th head - the whiplash effect of a player braced for a hit to an unsuspecting WR or a blind side block can cause the same damage. So no I don’t think a player hitting someone to separate the ball should automatically be legal. The NFL gives a ton of leeway - but hits like Hamlin's should 100% be illegal. He hit him high around the shoulders and as Meyers ducked there was contact with the head. People constantly complain about the NFL becoming a flag football league (just as people complain about Hockey and less fighting) and people keep saying they will stop watching and yet it’s popularity is going up ever year.

I don’t know - I love the Prime Telecast. I love the pre and post game. Michaels and Herbstreet are fine. I love having the Prime Vision cast with stats and facts and the All-22 view. I love getting the game on my TV and then flipping to my I-Pad when I want to travel or head to bed. I think Prime is already significantly better than Sunday Night Football or MNF on ESPN - although I enjoy the Manning cast. Considering how this is their first season and they are offering much more than traditional channels - I am ecstatic with the games. Give me more and fire the SNF group and Aikman on Mondays.

They do expect collision - the NFL has just started correctly dictating where you can collide. With a defenseless WR the collision is very targeted what you can do. The defender is initiating the contact has must ensure the contact stays lower in the event the WR tries to protect himself by ducking. Hamlin did 90% right - used his shoulder, didn’t launch himself, targeted the ball as it arrived, but the hit was up around the upper chest/shoulders and Meyers saw it was coming and ducked and the hit went through the shoulders to the head and exactly as it should it was flagged. I still believe the ejection had more to do with the crew tying to maintain control in a blow-out rather than risk escalation. The NFL continues to grow in popularity while legislating more and more restrictions on hitting, blocking, tackling, and formations because it has kept more QBs, WRs, and DEs healthy and able to play throughout the year. Scoring increases, number of plays increase, offensive talent increases and the game gets more fans every year watching more games and spending more money - there is no reason for the NFL to go back to the way it was done.

Correct - but they are a huge part of why the league had to adapt. The league does not want those players to make or survive today and that is the correct choice for the future of the NFL. Tons of HOF type players couldn’t survive in todays NFL. A crazy guy like Conrad Dobler or Deacon Jones with his head slaps, or even a cheap artist cutting o-line like Mark Schlerth are the reason the rules have been made and they all would struggle in todays NFL and that is not a bad thing to me.

Agreed - hate the ejection. The truth is I think the ejection had more to do with the timing in the game. With so little time left and a big score discrepancy- I get using the ejection to ensure that no-one goes after Hamlin and if removes a potential trigger. You saw during the Bills kneel downs how the Refs really had to get in between quickly to make sure nothing escalated. I think it was similar - you remove Hamlin at a point that it will not effect the outcome - it calms some of the anger over a big hit and it removes a retaliation potential on the next few plays that could spark something worse. So although I do not think the play warrants an ejection - I was not totally surprised to see that call at that point.

The ground can most certainly cause a fumble - it happens all the time. The ground can not cause a fumble on a player being tackled because when they hit the ground with anything other than feet or hands they are down by contact. If the player dives forward untouched and the ball squirts free on hitting the ground - it is a fumble. Even if the ground causes it. The issue with the Poyer Interception- is and has been - that if in the act of catching the ball the player is going to the ground - the NFL considers that part of the catch action and he must maintain full control through the action - regardless of steps, knee down, any other action. In this case, whether Poyer got 2, 3, or 4 feet down - or his knee hit first out of bounds, or he made an act of tucking the ball as he was falling - all of that is irrelevant because the act of falling started as part of the catch and therefore he must complete the catch. When he lands on the ground he loses possession as the ball rides up his chest and he re-established control lying on the ground out of bounds. That is the point the catch becomes official because based upon his falling action as part of the catch that is all part of the action. It is the same reason the Meyer TD was not a TD. He made the catch and had control, 2 feet down, and moved the ball from his shoulders to his hip, and act like tucking common to the game. Meyers never possessed the ball and completed additional move - so not catch - they have requirements to fulfill. Poyer in going to the ground also has a requirement and he did not fulfill it. Making a knee down a sole requirement has further impact because if a player dives in the middle of the field untouched and catches a ball laid out - and he posses the ball in his hands, his legs and knees make first contact- fulfilling the requirement, but as he lands on the ground the ball pops out - now it becomes a fumble rather than an incomplete pass. It becomes even worse when we add that for Poyer most of this occurred out of bounds. I understand the consternation, but it was a pretty clear cut and easy call to make and based upon how they call the game it was absolutely 100% the correct call. The call goes totally different if Poyer stays on his feet mostly because without hitting the ground - he never loses the ball - hence the requirement.

The problem is based on the rule Poyer did not catch the ball in bounds - he had 2 hands on the ball and got 2 feet down - fulfilling part of the requirements - when he landed out of bounds - he lost control and re-established control while OOB. The play Poyer makes is 100% an Int if he is in bounds, but based upon the ruling he does not establish control when the ball bounces on his chest OOB. It is essentially like someone recovering a fumble in the field of play, but their feet are OOB.

Then I will ask again - should Meyers have been awarded a TD on Hamlin’s hit. He got 2 feet down and moved the ball from his shoulder to his hip. Then he got drilled and it was correctly ruled incomplete. 2 feet and control is not the rule - it is part of the rule. To make a play like Poyer’s acceptable- has consequences like making Meyers a TD. It also makes potential catches into fumbles. Based upon how the NFL calls catches - they absolutely got it right - you want to change that - fine but then people will get pissed about plays like Meyers becoming a catch because it occurred in the end zone or if that Meyers hit occurs in the field that being ruled a fumble.

Yeah I mean it is not like he just threw for over 620 yards at a 77% completion rate with 2 TDS and no Ints in his last 2 games or anything. I think he is a leader because every player on both offense and especially defense talk about him as a leader. I think he is a leader because I watch him communicate and adjust the Dline and Milano and switch up the defense and communicate with the safeties to coordinate the 3 levels to get everyone in the best position. The very thing we have been lacking the past 2 1/2 games when we had to go very basic shell coverages. Mostly I think he is a leader because of how his teammates rally around him and speak of him and how that was missing with him out.

That might be, but he clearly gets 2 feet down and that action causes him to fall - therefore the way they teach it is no matter how many body parts or tucking action occurs - he still must maintain the control. If all of that had occurred 3 more feet in bounds and he flew as he did - got both feet down and continue to fall - his knee, hip, and shoulder all landed in bounds, but his head hit OOB and the ball moved - possession would have been established after his head hit OOB and it would still be incomplete. The reason I say be careful is because any rule change where tucking might be considered a football action could have unseen consequences- such as a WR diving for a catch in bounds - gets hands on the ball and 2 feet down. As he is falling he tucks the ball and it comes loose as he hits the ground - based upon your new definition- that would be a catch and a fumble with the potential for a huge turnover.

How should they change it to make that a catch - because you have to be very careful or you end up with a bunch of unintended consequences. The rule is set pretty standard now for actions where the player makes a catch that causes him to go to the ground. I am all for examining it, but I think that in pretty much any scenario- that is an incomplete pass. I do not see what change you make that allows a player that loses full possession of the ball to be granted a catch or interception OOB.

The turf never matter - it is at what point the action of a catch is complete and in this case the action is not complete until he has survived hitting the ground. The ball moved when he landed - so the action of his completing the play occurred as soon as he re-secured the ball and at that point he was OOB. Should the pass that Hamlin broke up been called a TD? The Receiver caught the ball very briefly with 2 feet down and got drilled before he could move and the ball came loose. They define in the rules and via study what makes a catch and what doesn’t - some are close, but neither of them in the game last night were particularly close. Poyer clearly lost control when he hit the ground - it was pretty obvious and should have been called live, but was so easy they didn’t even need to have the Ref look to overturn. Hamlin’s hit also clearly caused the receiver to lose possession before he could make a football move.

I guess I really do not understand how anyone could not understand the ruling. The Refs got it 100% correct and even though it sucks - that is exactly how that call should go based upon the rules. Poyer did everything right - caught the ball and worked hard to get both feet down, but that action caused him to fall to the ground - now the rule becomes he must maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground. Poyer clearly loses control as the ball moves when he hits the ground. The fact that he regains control without the ball hitting the ground is meaningless. The “official” catch does not occur until he has control and is on the ground in this situation and that occurs with him well out of bounds. If that had happened in the middle of the field it is an interception at the point he regains control, but as that occurred OOB - it is just incomplete. There is nothing crazy or controversial about the call - it is pretty consistently called that way along the sidelines and just because it negated an Int - doesn’t change they got the call correct.