peterpan Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thr_wedge Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 To answer your second question, They didn't want Carpenter to kick a FG from the Miami 34.. Score was 19-14, and 3 points would have made it 22-14 so a full 1 possession game. Dolphins figured a 3rd and 14 would not result in a TD. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 @sportingnews "I'm gonna slam the f— out of him next time." So... Ndamukong Suh disagreed with the refs. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/4660559-ndamukong-suh-referees-officials-penalty-call-tyrod-taylor-dolphins-bills? Suh threatened to do bodily harm next time. He had a good point IMO as the play should have been ruled a sack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) hopefully Suh saves some of that rage for the next time they play NE* Fall on those dinky little WR Suh! Edited November 9, 2015 by TheFunPolice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 The league is protecting the qb's so right or wrong that's the call. There is no horse collar ever...he would have been called for the horse collar if he sacked him anyways. Suh needs to not horse collar tackle him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Good. Slam Brady. Get banned from the NFL as a result. Brady gets slammed (not hoping for an injury, but a good a** kicking); and that idiot Shu gets tossed out. Dirty player. In other news, speaking of dirty, looks like good ol Greggo is paying dirty in St. Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Anyone that thinks they'll call that play dead is a total moron. Total and complete moron. They call a QB down when he's in the grasp and controlled. Bottom line: if you can throw the ball away, you aren't in the grasp and controlled. Suh is an idiot, and Miami got what they deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. Absolutely not; Suh never had control of Taylor. The spin around and throw happened in a fraction of a second. In the grasp is for when you have a guy wrapped up but he's still upright. Suh threatened to do bodily harm next time. He had a good point IMO as the play should have been ruled a sack. He has a good point because he threatened bodily harm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Absolutely not; Suh never had control of Taylor. The spin around and throw happened in a fraction of a second. In the grasp is for when you have a guy wrapped up but he's still upright. He has a good point because he threatened bodily harm? No. He had a good point because he had Taylor wrapped up and completely under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I don't think it was a sack in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 No. He had a good point because he had Taylor wrapped up and completely under control. Did you see the video? He wasn't anywhere near having him wrapped up nor did he have Taylor under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Did you see the video? He wasn't anywhere near having him wrapped up nor did he have Taylor under control. IMO he did. If the NFL wants to protect QBs so badly they need to blow the whistle on plays like that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 IMO he did. If the NFL wants to protect QBs so badly they need to blow the whistle on plays like that one. Here's my take: if that's Russell Wilson, would the officials blow that dead? IMO, not a chance they would, because he makes plays spinning out of tackles like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EDinRTP Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Turning point of the game. Should have been a sack and punt. Instead, no call and touchdown on next play. Can't stand the Dolphins, but it Suh had tossed him to the ground, he would have been penalized and probably fined based on his past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Here's my take: if that's Russell Wilson, would the officials blow that dead? IMO, not a chance they would, because he makes plays spinning out of tackles like that. You'd be among the 1st to B word and whine about Suh being dirty if he slams Tyrod and lands on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I think the right call was made, but I can see the issue from Suh's perspective. IMO, he did not have control of him. He had a good grip, but TT never stopped moving and was spinning/pulling away. Suh definitely let up, whether that was because he was worried about the horse collar or another personal foul is hard to say. The NFL has gotten so out of control on these types of calls it makes it almost impossible for a defensive player to make the right the call in the heat of the play. I actually commend Suh for trying to make the right call for his team (can you imagine Hughes doing that??), but he made a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. I have seen much worse, but could have went either way. I don't for one second believe Suh let up because he thought they would blow the whistle, he simply could not get a good grasp of TT. I was planning on watching the kick from the tunnel and and running to the rest room after the kick. When they declined a ran back to my seat thinking "this could be good"...I really can't believe they took that penalty. I understand they were trying to take them out of FG range, but with all the iffy defensive penalties this season, i would have took my chances on a 51 yard FG... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmur66 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) The NFL doesn't like defense anymore. Suh coulda killed him and obviously eased up to avoid a penalty. Edited November 9, 2015 by bmur66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/8/9693006/ndamukong-suh-should-have-had-a-sack-the-bills-scored-a-touchdown Do people really think Taylor should have been called down here? Progress was not stopped. Suh couldn't have tackled him or "slammed him to the ground" because he had him around the "horse collar" So why are people thinking this should have been a sack? Also, why the Dolphins didn't decline the holding penalty and go to 4th down - thats the reason the Bills had another 3rd down to throw a TD on. The in the grasp rule basically doesn't exist anymore -- it led to controversy and never produced the results for which it was intended (keeping the qb upright). So no, he shouldn't have been called down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I have seen much worse, but could have went either way. I don't for one second believe Suh let up because he thought they would blow the whistle, he simply could not get a good grasp of TT. It's impossible to know for sure, but it sure looked like he let up at the end. The problem for him is that he's not the ref. Just because he let up doesn't automatically mean TT wouldn't have been able to get loose and get rid of the ball if he hadn't let up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts