Rochesterfan

To me it isn’t the topic - it is the OP dropping the thread and then disappearing. If you ( @GunnerBill) started the thread - gave your opinions and then discussed it back and forth - the thread has meaning to you. This poster in his last 5 posts - has started at least 3 threads and never once followed up or spoke again on it. It has been left to you to decide what he is asking and how you want to interpret the question. For me - I will interpret it my own way. I would love it if Josh is by far the best and longest lasting QB in his draft class. That is how I see Stafford. The numbers do not matter - he ends up by far as the most successful QB in that class and if I can say that about Josh - then I will be happy because they made the right choice. Other than that - the stats will come or not, the wins will continue, I just want him to far exceed any other QB in that draft.

I will respond to the troll with quote by @Chandler#81 in the last thread of his that he closed about an immature JA that the OP does not think has IT. The OP does not seem to care drops a turd and leaves with no opinion. Personally I think it is ridiculous at this point - I would not mind the longevity because that means he is good - want more from the team. From his previous threads: Report post Posted September 4 Not surprisingly, the OP dropped this bomb of a thread 8 hours ago, then quickly disappeared and hasn’t returned. He/She now won’t return for a month. If you start a thread, stay with the thread. Interact with posters views on your topic. The extremes are this crapfest and @Alphadawg7‘s 80 pager on Zay. He stayed with it as a mature person should. This thread -and the OP- gets flushed down the commode.

It was not a challenge - the issue seems to be if there was some question about replay or NY getting involved. There was a turn-over - so although they say there was no “replay review” was not involved - with the turnover - replay and NY can be involved. They ruled it as Pass Interference and there is a rule to allow that to b discussed and overturned. They do not have the power to then go back and reverse the call and say it should have been holding. I think if they had all gotten together and made that choice before moving the ball - it might have been ok, but I do not think after enforcement they can just arbitrarily decide to go back and call it holding. The problem as I see it (and this was alluded to by guys like Steratore in preseason) is the rule is not designed to get a call right as written, because you can not correct an obvious foul for holding, illegal contact, etc. - it is designed to verify calls as made on the field or to catch blatant misses and even that has been up for debate with things like Thursdays missed PI call live and on review.

Because the correct call as the ref announced was probably holding, but that was not what was called and that is not reviewable because the coaches and GMs in their wisdom created a bad rule that does not work. The PI was incorrect and could be reviewed and overturned.

That is not correct though - it was a turnover with a penalty- all turnovers are automatically reviewed. I agree they should not be looking at PI, but the coaches and GMs decided they wanted PI reviewed - so on a turnover PI can be reviewed as part of the turnover. If they had ruled holding or illegal contact and this occurred - I would cry foul, but because it was called PI and a turnover - it is certainly up for review and discussion. The replay official should have buzzed down to discuss and if there was an issue - it should go to NY for clarification. The problem is the coaches and GMs on the competition committee do not think about impact they saw the NO play and way over reacted and it leads to this. I believe there are many issues because they cannot review holding or illegal contact - so if that had been called - no review and the play is reversed. Additionally if the ball had not been intercepted or a TD scored - the PI would have need to been challenged to get a review, but in this case they actually did the correct thing. The problem is all with the wrong call on Kelce - should have been defensive holding and all of this goes away.

All this tech would just lead to more issues. If the contact is holding the force might be negative. It could be contact from someone going up to make a play. The contact could be initiated by the offensive player. You are still subject 100% to someone having to look and then try to interpret the data. Sensors on the field and in the ball - you still have to determine down by contact or when events occurred. Looking at force - for example is a player down - well if the player is not hitting the ground - you might mis-spot the ball especially near the goal line. The sensors in the ball also need to look in regards to balls shape and how it is being held. There are limited things where the tech could help, but you are asking for more stoppages to look at the data and even worse a flag coming out 20 seconds after a play as the other team is getting ready to snap the next play. You think it is bad now - the conspiracy theories will go through the roof as a questionable play is suddenly flagged because of questionable tech data - that is not verifiable by the home audience or the people in the stadium.

Where are you getting your Coffee? I am not sure, but if you go to Starbucks - that would mean the Browns are worth about 6 bucks. LOL

No, No, No, and No to Rex in Washington. Come on guys - Cleveland is where Rex should go. He and Baker already in full communication across the Media. Perfect Fit!

I just love the fact that there was no media present - so it is not designed to be a photo op. It is real. I also love two small schools - typically groups that get ignored by high level players and here is a QB on his bye week making their entire year. GREAT JOB!

Very little take away - more like stupid excuses to click on their links. Wish you could undo clicks for poor lists like this.

That is totally incorrect and has been proven so far this year - Their play calling has been the same - the execution has been poor. They throw the ball at a similar percentage rate and have not gone to the run run pass punt or any traditional conservative play calling motifs. Please explain how they are very very conservative when they have a 10 point lead - I am very interested to understand your vision on this.

Not sure I get these responses. The Bills have covered in 4 out of 5 games and won 2 outright as an underdog. Cincinnati is the only game they did not cover and it was by 2 points in a game they had covered for 3/4 ths of the game. They were not expected to blow anyone out until now. Vegas thought they would be close games and they were.

Great a third useless thread - I can’t wait until next week.

No one is arguing that Mayfield was not bad, but just like NE and KC when winning big - pulling your QB does not mean the same thing as benching. Words have meanings and being benched means he was pulled because of his play and the back-up is playing the rest of the game you are trying to win - not one drive at the end of a 4 score blow out. Being benched does not meaning being pulled in a blowout even if it totally your fault for the blow out. Yes - other players are still on the field, but coaches can’t forfeit- so you need people out there. They had back-ups in at QB and WR to protect their investments. I honestly could not figure out why they let Chubb run the ball as he has been their entire offense, but I think Freddie is totally overmatched as a coach and really is not on top of things.

Ahh - so I get it - that means the Pats have benched Tom Brady several times this year as with big leads the NE offense is on the Field and Brady is on the bench - now I get it. I would have thought one of the best QBs of all time would not be repeatedly benched, but apparently NE when winning decides it is better to bench him. You are correct that he was not on the field in an game they were not winning and could not win for the last drive against a team that was trying to kill him. I would not say benched because if that was a 1 score game and they had a chance to win or tie - my guess is Mayfield is out there. He was replaced to protect him from injury. Kitchens would be getting destroyed if anything had happened to Baker on that last drive - just as he should be getting destroyed for letting Beckham return a punt down multiple scores where he ends up getting smacked around and fumbling.

I don’t think him not playing the last series constitutes a benching. They were blown out and he may suck or may have read his press clippings, but he was not really benched.

I don’t disagree with that - I would love to see the cut block eliminated just about everywhere for safety, but it has real uses. The only other thing that I would say is maybe after the penalty- Milano attacks that blitz differently. Maybe instead of the full tilt attack - that opened him up to the hit. He rushes a bit more under control to jump or better avoid the RB - lessening the chance he ends up flying through the air and landing there. In this case it was a double whammy - he took a nasty tumble and got flagged. If it was just the hit, but he got to hit the QB with no penalty - then the players are more likely to dive that way opening themselves, the QBs, and the blockers up to more potential big hits and injury. I feel bad for Milano because I was obvious that he was just the victim of the circumstance and the play was not dirty in any way, but I can also understand still calling it a foul to protect the player.

I understand, but the NFL seems to disagree as they called it a penalty and it gets called like that the majority of times a QB is hit low. You can say you do not agree, but if it is called a penalty the majority of the times it happens - then the obvious guidance behind the rules must be the NFL deems that a penalty. There are a lot of penalties I do not agree with or think are ticky-Tac, but if they get called most of the time - then what I think is unimportant because the league has decided to call it that way - until they change it up with new guidance. It is legal to cut block him at this time.

It should not prevent blitzing - why would they want to prevent blitzing? They want the defenders attacking, but under control. You had guys like JP Losman, Carson Palmer, and most famously Tom Brady get taken out by defenders that ended up hitting the QB low around the knees. They wanted to lessen that chance - so they started making it illegal to hit a QB in the pocket down low and put a lot of guidance around that. It seems to have helped as knee injuries to the QB are less frequent- especially in the pocket. I think that penalizing the defender seems to have helped, but in the end sometimes things happen and guys get hurt, but working to have them hit in the body increases the protection.

I have no issue if you want to ban the low hits, but that is not currently the rule. You see defensive players get upended like that in every couple of games - they are still responsible for their momentum. Whether it helps or not is up for debate because it happens infrequently and without that getting called would it happen more? Would defensive players launch themselves more frequently and with more abandon if they were not penalized if the blocker touched them? We won’t know - only that currently it seems to be illegal and is a very infrequent issue.

It does not necessarily mean push, the DE could be rushing and beat him to the outside and the tackle could grab the arm and pull causing him to go into the QBs legs. The DT could bull rush and knock a guard on his back and the guard could pull him down and they collide with the QBs legs and it does not get called. The defining part seems to be the “blocker” creates the momentum that causes the impact. In this case the blocker caused the player to flip, but did not cause the momentum that brought him in contact. The NFL rules as written just do not cover every situation - it would be impossible- therefore there is leeway and guidance that helps the refs make a call.

The rule was written long ago - which is why they create videos to show the refs every off season and throughout the season how they want these called. The NFL rulebook ends up being super complicated because most rules were written and implemented when blocking was blocking not guys flying through and getting upended. They do do not go through and rewrite every rule as things get updated - they amend some, but use more teaching guides to show what they want and do not want. If you go go through the rule book as a lawyer- you will find tons of things that contradict each other or you can argue against, but in the end they want to protect he guy - they are calling that a foul most of the time.

No you were exactly right it is just the reason others are disagreeing- the word blocked is causing issues.

The problem with the “literal” interpretation of an NFL rule book is that we are not always privy to what they show them as specific examples of fouls and not fouls and why they are called that way. I have seen several times them bring in the “rules experts” and they talk about the rules and how the NFL has bunches of videos of acceptable and not acceptable plays to help guide the Refs. This is one that they talk about a couple of times a year and it always revolves around definition and explanation. Technically Milano is not blocked into the QB because the blocking player is moving away from the QB and therefore his contact and movement would not move Milano into the QB. The momentum and speed of Milano is what causes the contact. Yes it would not occur if the guy did not cut him, but the action of the cut is independent of the outcome. Unfortunately as a lawyer- you are looking at it as a hard and fast rule, but the NFL uses previous plays to guide the refs to better understand the current interpretation of the rules and that can be fluid to some degree. They do not want guys lunging wildly or diving over piles and taking out planted QBs - so the rules are interpreted to ensure that is not the case. They place a ton of emphasis on the defensive player being in control of themselves and maintaining body awareness. It sometimes leads to near impossible things that defenders must do, but the QB should be protected as much as possible - just as defenseless receivers should.

I think blocked is the problem people have with this. The correct call was made and that is exactly how it should be called. When they talk talk about being blocked into the QBs legs - they are talking about 2 players engaged with one another and the O-line either driving or forcing the defender into the QBs legs. They are not talking about that type of chip block because the guy blocking is not the pushing or moving him toward the QB. Milano blitzed with recklessness straight at the QB. The RB chipped and caught him low, but it was all of Milano’s momentum that forced the contact. It was not dirty and I would not expect it to be fined other than the standard roughing fine, but it was still the correct call. The defender has some responsibility over keeping themselves in control and in this case he was out of control - got flipped - and tried to continue on - which led to the contact - correct call. It is also a penalty (as was seen and correctly called in another game) if you hit and try to sack the QB and the hit starts around the waist - if you slide down and end up below the knees. Sometimes it sucks, but it makes a big difference when these are called.