Rochesterfan

I don’t think that is correct. The 21 days refers to the point they move him from inactive PUP to Active PUP. Sal talked about Ike - who is also on PUP and most likely will not be ready until week 12 or so and then the Bills can move him to active PUP and then use their 3 weeks.

I believe you guys are combining a few rules. The Bills can move him to active PUP to allow him to start practicing and that starts the 21 days. The Bills do not have to activate him yet though - that is their choice. They can leave him on inactive PUP for the season as long as they want. Once they move him to Active Pup - he can practice without taking a roster spot for up to 3 weeks and then they need to either place him on the active roster or IR him. For example - Tre might be ready to move to active PUP and with the Crowder injury there is an open roster spot if they want him active Roster, but Ike who is also on PUP might not even be looked at until week 11 or 12 and that is fine.

I believe other than game 1 they have been forced to call up 2 position players for DL and CB to help cover for injuries. They get limited call ups and had to cover the injuried spots first. Maybe Johnson gets called up one we get through this rash of injuries and they have a spot to call him up. It looks like versus Pittsburgh - we are going to need WR and maybe 2 WRs or another DL if Phillips isn’t back - so I do not see a spot o Johnson this week. JMO

It is not necessarily for you - we all do it. We pitch our tents on a mountain/hill and die there. It is good to have discussions back and forth with proof and reasoning as that helps us grow. It is bad to have back and forths where it is - I think this and I am right - especially when everyone else is going - wait maybe you need to look at this. I don’t know maybe it is just the new world, but there must be room for opinions if people have valid reasons that they share.

People are more than willing to have constructive criticism - he issue is the few that push a narrative, but do not really discuss. They just keep stating the same incorrect garbage over and over - even when there has been concrete proof to show the other side. For example - here was a huge complaint by a specific poster about how McD was to blame for not challenging the Davis “catch” in the Miami game. Tons of proof as provided stating why it was not a TD, but the poster just kept repeating it was a catch with no poof. It is fine to present your case, but when you are the only one that sees it a certain way and your whole reason is that is how you feel - maybe express yourself once or twice and then move on rather than making it crusade over and over.

We have one that started this thread and also started a thread about it was better when the Bills were losing. That is the subset of fans we are dealing with. You are correct - they will never be happy and will complain about everything with coaching until we are back to the Jaurons and Rex Ryan’s and last in the division.

That is exactly what I thought - they can call up Austin or Hodgins from the PS, but use the roster spot for White. Then see where we are next week.

I believe tomorrow is the earliest to activate him as there is still a Monday night game so week 4 is not technically over yet. I would assume depending upon other injuries and how they want to handle things - the Bills will move him to active PUP this week, but only promote him to the active roster if they have the roster spot available. I think they would want to get him several days to get into “football” shape and moving around others before placing him in a game. I expect they are looking at KC and maybe using him in a few minor roles helping out as CB/Safety in coverage to build him back up - especially as Elam, Jackson, and Benford have looked good when in place - although KC is a different beast from the teams we have played.

Basically exactly what you were told in the other thread. This is not a catch because in the act of making the catch - he goes to the ground (due to the tackle) before completing the catch and therefore must maintain the catch through the ground which he did not do. It is very different from the Davis end zone play, but neither were a TD based on how the league rules catches.

My biggest question with Denver was always coaching. For all of the complaining Wilson did in Seattle - I think Pete Carroll was the perfect coach for him and did a ton to let him sort of play the loose, free style he plays. Without Pete and on a poorly coached team - things fall on Russ that in Seattle just got deflected away and this has shone a spotlight on that odd personality that Wilson has. In my gut - I think Wilson is an over the top introvert that is playing in the most extroverted position in major league sports and the move to Denver is not going to end well as Russ is not the leader people expected.

They have struggled many times with the QB sneak. Most notably the game against Tennessee at the goal line, but other times prior to that. Mitch is not a big bruising center and Josh has issues taking the snap like that from under center and the two have caused issues even in games where he has gotten the first down like Dallas on Thanksgiving. In addition Josh has taken some big shots in QB sneak situations - I think his height and size makes him a bit awkward and he does not get that surprise snap and lean. Early years he was consistently good at getting first downs, but as the OL has struggled in the run game his ability to burrow forward has not been as good and they have been stopped - so I think they have sort of pulled it from the playbook for now.

Maintains control is the key. If he catches the ball diving out of bounds and just barely drags both toes as he goes nearly horizontal and catches the ball with even just the tips of his fingers and he never reacts to say tuck the ball in or bring it back at all, but MAINTAINS CONTROL of the ball through ground - it is a catch as maintaining control is the football action. If as you say - when he lands - if the ball hits the ground or he has to regains control, but is now out of bounds - then it would be incomplete. Completing the action of the catch by going to the ground and maintaining control of the ball is the action required. If the see any movement - it will be incomplete. Although not OOB - there was a nice example in the GB/NE game where Rodgers threw it to the end zone- his WR caught the ball and took 2 steps as he was tackled from behind. Even though he took 2 steps and tucked the ball away - all the elements needed - as he was going to the ground - he also had to maintain control through the ground and it was obvious that even though it was tucked away - the ground knocked the ball loose and it hit the ground and was therefore incomplete.

I don’t know, but that is how it is taught and when have you ever seen a WR make a catch on the sideline and the mark the ball up field at a spot prior to the catch. I think you just are not finding the right section and are trying way to hard. It is actually called pretty consistently exactly as I have stated and it is exactly what we are taught in clinics. The biggest difference in lower sports is what establishes in bounds - one foot versus two feet - etc.

If he drags his feet in bounds - he does not have to make a football move - he just has to maintain control of the ball through the action of going to the ground. His feet being down in bounds with possession- establishes the marker of where he is. The action of the catch is completed by maintaining the control through the ground in this case because he was diving. He needs 2 feet down, or a knee, butt, lower leg, anything that counts for establishing the in bound portion and then maintain control to the ground.

Again it simply does not matter because for it to be a catch the player MUST BE IN THE FIELD OF PLAY. This is not rocket science. It does not matter where the ball is because the player is in bounds to make it a legal catch. The only time the ball being out of the field of play matters is when the person possessing the ball leaves the field of play and lands out of bounds. And even then - the sideline only matters it the ball leaves the field of play after the possessor of the ball leaves the field of play and before he lands out of bounds. In you example - the ball would be marked where he caught the ball and was established in bounds. For example - he dives and has both toes down and catches the at the 35 - the ball is a 3 yards out of bounds, but it would be spotted where he was in bounds. If he was a yard short - he could not make the catch and as he is falling out of bound - extend his arm forward trying to get the extra yard because he is no longer established in bounds.

Because for it to be a catch he must be established in bounds with 2 feet down or a knee, butt, leg, anything that establishes a catch. And therefore that is the last spot the the player was inbound - which is the first part of marking the ball - even if he is heading out of bounds or landing immediately out of bounds. Additionally the ball does not have to leave the field of play to be out of bounds. If a player is out of bounds and touches the ball - the ball is considered out of bounds even if it is still 6 feet in bounds. A guy can fumble and if a player has a toe out of bound - lies down and hit the ball - it is a dead ball at that point. Same with a kick off. The first rule of spotting is alway with the player - where is the player in bounds on the field. Once the player gives up being in bound by leaving his feet and landing out of bounds - the next marking is the spot the ball leaves the field of play.

Nope because for it to be a catch - the player must be in bounds. If the player is in bounds then that is where the ball is spotted. It is just like a RB on the sideline - the ball while he is running can go out of bounds as long as the runner stays in bounds. Once the player gets hit or leaves his feet - if he does not come down in bound again - then where the ball crossed out of bounds is where it should be marked. The sideline only comes into play when the player is no longer established in bounds. The ball is marked based upon the player being in bound at their last spot on the sideline. It is why a pass does not have to be in the field of play to be a TD or a catch. It has to be thrown by a guy in the field of play and the receiver must be established in the field of play - then it is a completion regardless if the ball is in the field of play or not.

You can only do that if the body is in bounds still. It is really not that difficult. If the player is in bounds and the ball is in their hand - the ball is in bounds. Once the player leaves the field of play - Ala Lamar on the run - where the ball crosses the sideline after their last in play position is where the ball is spotted. It was done for 2 reasons - one to give the Refs better visibility to a yard marker to better spot the ball and to prevent these head first dives that the defense can’t defend against because the player is out of bounds. Players used to run and then dive out of bounds and where they landed is where they spotted the ball, but in protecting players from hits - you can’t hit a player out of bounds - so they adjusted the rules to balance that. Once a player leaves the field of play - the spot the ball crosses out of bound is where it is marked - that is why the player must get the ball to at minimal hit the pylon if they are diving along the sideline.

You seem to be the only one on the Bills board complaining about what was a legitimate call. Why are you campaigning so hard for such a dumb point that is incorrect. You have not made a legitimate point about why it should not have been called, while others have pointed to legitimate reasons it should be called. It would be one thing if this was actually a discussion, but it is you railroading a point that is wrong and no one else agreeing with you. You don’t think it was a penalty- we all know that and quite frankly do not need you to sit and say in 30 more posts that you don’t think the penalty where a defender stopped and saw the ball get thrown and then restarted took an extra step and purposely hit Josh in the upper sternum, neck, and head region - should not have been called. Just go back to your NE board and root for their 3rd sting QB. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Yeah it is a partial list of the dumb threads that when combined with the foolish posts explain the negative reaction to you. But enjoy pretending otherwise.

oh the troll thinks he is just negative. Go enjoy your losses. 🤦‍♂️

This is crazy at this point - the guy has not even been shown to have done anything wrong within the protocol. The NFLPA fired him as is their right within the CBA without giving cause or reason. Unless you were in the locker room - we have no idea what he said or did as the UNC. He should have examined Tua and then gave his opinion on if he thought he was concussed or not based upon his cognitive ability. If Tua passed his cognitive ability compared to his baseline and the team doctor tells him that Tua is not showing any signs of mental difficulties - there is little the UNC can do. Concussions are mis-diagnosed all of the time because it is not a clear cut test to determine. It is best caught by people administering the test that have a more familiar knowledge of the player to see if there are mental changes and that is why the testing is done in conjunction with the team doctor. The UNC can grade the results of the questions, but the team doctor must grade the mental changes. Based upon what has been pulled from the agreement - both the UNC and the team doctor must consult and then it is the team doctor that makes the call. The current protocol also allows for a situation like this to occur - where the player complains about back or ankle pain and passes all mental testing and they can blame the instability on something other than concussions. For the entire process to work - the 3 individuals (UNC, team doctor, and player) must be honest and truthful throughout - we have no idea which of these broke down, but the UNC does not at this time deserve to lose his medical license or career over something that he has not been shown to have done incorrectly. The bigger fault to me lies with the team doctor and the head coach, but the NFLPA has no jurisdiction there so they did the only thing they could do - create a scapegoat and fire the UNC without providing reasoning or evidence that he did anything wrong at this point. I could agree if they show that he thought he was concussed and then purposely said he was fine to allow him to play, but that has not been shown at this point.

Also written into the contract is that the NFL and NFLPA can each fire one UNC for any reason without consulting the other side. The NFLPA fired this UNC under this rule. Then stated their were multiple “mistakes” without having presented any mistakes. I do not think the UNC has any say as it is in the contract, but if the NFLPA starts making a big deal about him screwing up - my guess is they get sued for potentially impacting his career - especially if as is claimed they followed the protocol and Tua was cleared by the team doctor. My guess is this is Smith and the NFLPA trying to at least make a show of doing something because he loses to the NFL all the time - it really has little to do with the UNC that evaluates these guys on a rare and random basis.

They did Tua wrong on many levels, but that does not make the rest correct. If the UNC came in and did a concussion evaluation and Tua passed and the Miami trainer didn’t notice anything different mentally and Tua states that it wasn’t my head it was my back that was the issue because he knows that would get him back in the game - then they do not have to be shady or incompetent - they just have nothing to hold him out based upon the rules. The same thing happened to Mahomes without the second concussion situation. The doctors have the video and act on the assumption of a concussion, but if the player passes all of the concussion testing and the player gives and orthopedic response - no it wasn’t my head it was my back - I landed funny and it spasmed as I stood up. Then there is legitimate evidence based upon the ruling to allow him to return if he wants to. The real issue is that the NFL and NFLPA need to get Tua’s side of the story and my guess is the NFLPA will not like that. The doctors will state he passed - Tua will state he passed - everything will go down to was the back his “idea” or was it something the team trainer stated that gave him the loophole. If it was the trainer - fire him and fine the team and take away draft picks. If it was Tua knowing that might get him back in - what can you do - Bart Scott said it earlier - the players game the system. Without the players being honest - there will always be opportunities for this to occur- same issue with clearing protocol- if they are not honest about symptoms then they clear faster before they are ready.

That is what the evaluation is all about - they take it out of the players hands. If they fail the cognitive testing they enter the protocol and can not return. Therefore as Bart Scott stated - many players cheat on the off season baseline testing to help if something happens during the season. For the protocol to work it’s best - it takes the players being honest, both during the game and in baseline testing. If players are going to lie and cheat - the protocols are going to fail and you get exactly what happened with Tua - a guy that should never had returned nor played Thursday, but was cleared for both and will probably be cleared by next Sunday so as not to miss a game.