Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

PostGame Thread (SEA vs. GB)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
terminal


Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 42
Location: East Green Bay
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tooki wrote:
With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.


i understand that. but how many big plays did the seattle secondary prevent by playing aggressive? i mean, browner's assault of jennings should have resulted in a golden opportunity for the packers to score a TD.

for me with my packers glasses on, i could say matthews got held on the first seattle TD play. but i let it go because i see it called sometimes and other times i don't. same with the chancellor play in my eyes. again, with an aggressive defense, sometimes the risk pays off and sometimes it doesn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7864
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tooki wrote:
With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.
Rolling Eyes Since when can you hit a receiver before he has the ball and it not be pass interference? Cuz Kam got there early.
_________________



Duff Man wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Josh Sitton, Mike Daniels

Average at best
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmoney


Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 1708
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tooki wrote:
With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.


Wrong. The Chancellor PI did not directly result in a TD. It assisted, but the TD was not a direct result of that penalty.

There's only one play that anyone can decisively say directly affected the outcome of the game. The last one. Every other call/non-call has a "what if attached"

For instance- the Walden roughing the passer call clearly was brutal for the Pack, but it was not decisive. Had the INT been counted, there is no guarantee that the Packers would've won.

In the same way, the Chancellor PI was brutal for the Seahawks, but it was not decisive. It wouldn't have sealed victory for the Seahawks, not even close. It would've been 4th and 2 with like 9 minutes left in the game.


Last edited by jmoney on Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheGreatZepp


Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Posts: 2844
Location: Brookfield, WI
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

skurey wrote:
shut up all of you seahawk fans. take your win and go back to your forum.
That really isn't called for.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1101
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would say that tate did not control the ball because in no way shape or form did he ever meet or exceed the amount of control that jennings demonstrated. Jennings was the first to touch it, first to grasp it, first to pull it to his body (move the ball relative to his body) First, first, first. So I'm certain he had control first.

tate on the other hand does almost every movement reactively and starts with one hand at best on the ball, only realizing two hands at times and his main goal during the play and the reason he removes a hand at one time is to wrest control from jennings. I really don't argue with the call on the field, I argue with the decision of the review crew and the insufficient evidence ruling. The evidence is clear to me: the referee was incompetent and the review crew was incompetent. The officials in the endzone who made conflicting calls did not have enough evidence to make a call either way.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skurey


Joined: 13 Nov 2010
Posts: 823
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheGreatZepp wrote:
skurey wrote:
shut up all of you seahawk fans. take your win and go back to your forum.
That really isn't called for.


keep it up, you'll get your modship in no time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tooki


Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 10733
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I said directly, because with that PI call, the Packers got points off of it.

I will not debate that it determined the outcome of the game. But it definitely influenced the scoreboard. Just as the Walden INT did as well.

(And that play was all on Russell Wilson. He shouldn't have left the pocket like that.)

terminal wrote:
Tooki wrote:
With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.


i understand that. but how many big plays did the seattle secondary prevent by playing aggressive? i mean, browner's assault of jennings should have resulted in a golden opportunity for the packers to score a TD.

for me with my packers glasses on, i could say matthews got held on the first seattle TD play. but i let it go because i see it called sometimes and other times i don't. same with the chancellor play in my eyes. again, with an aggressive defense, sometimes the risk pays off and sometimes it doesn't.


That was definitely holding. Our guys were held a lot as well. I didn't want to bring up the offensive holding, because it was uncalled a lot for both teams.

MNPackfan32 wrote:
Tooki wrote:
With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.
Rolling Eyes Since when can you hit a receiver before he has the ball and it not be pass interference? Cuz Kam got there early.


It might just be me, but I thought that was clearly a bad call. I thought that he hit the Packer as soon as he caught the ball. I thought that his timing on the player was comparable to the play where Richard Sherman was covering Jermichael Finley and he ripped the ball from his hands (no penalty was called).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13862
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So I just broke this one down.

Few things that I saw that I have not talked about yet:

1) Hawk has come to play this year! Was told this off-season by a Green Bay staff member that the club asked Hawk to cut off 15 pound to help his short area skills. Well, he did so and has looked very good so far this season. Man sold his body to help stop Lynch Monday night. The stat line might not show his play. But go watch him stick his head right in the middle of that thing. Not a special talent, but man's a tough SOB.

2) It's a damn shame Rodgers had NO time in the first half there. Jennings got away a hand full of times as did DJ Williams.

3) That might have been the most blocking effort I have ever seen from Finley. Got into it a few times early and was playing mad. Damn shame we can't get "that guy" week in and week out. Would make the drops a good bit more easy to get over.

4) My god can 22 ever cover some grass!!! Fast is one thing but field fast is another. Damn guy makes Burnett look slow. Though Burnett is having a hard time seeing it right now for some reason?

5) I'm one that feels Bush can be a damn fine dime back at this level. That said, his impact on the teams unit when his mind is all in there is truly ace level. That was a damn good KR/PR right there but those guys had to sell out on Bush!

6) By far the best Shields has looked in a long time! Man's pure god given cover skills are special. If he keeps his mind right I truly hope we see him outside all year with Williams. I can't wait to see his play after the first time he is had for a big play. Man has been cutting some legs out this season also. My only Q right now is if he has that closer mindset. The ability to forget is often the key for young DB's. I was starting the think it might be a long term issue for Shields. Hope like hell I'm wrong because man is that ever a talent.

7) I like Benson, but why no Green? Hell of a lot of one back going on with Kuhn right now. Not that I have an issue there, but damn, that's Green's game!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Macc_Aviv


Joined: 06 Jan 2011
Posts: 1039
Location: Shaking babies and kissing hands
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
So I just broke this one down.

Few things that I saw that I have not talked about yet:

1) Hawk has come to play this year! Was told this off-season by a Green Bay staff member that the club asked Hawk to cut off 15 pound to help his short area skills. Well, he did so and has looked very good so far this season. Man sold his body to help stop Lynch Monday night. The stat line might not show his play. But go watch him stick his head right in the middle of that thing. Not a special talent, but man's a tough SOB.

2) It's a damn shame Rodgers had NO time in the first half there. Jennings got away a hand full of times as did DJ Williams.

3) That might have been the most blocking effort I have ever seen from Finley. Got into it a few times early and was playing mad. Damn shame we can't get "that guy" week in and week out. Would make the drops a good bit more easy to get over.

4) My god can 22 ever cover some grass!!! Fast is one thing but field fast is another. Damn guy makes Burnett look slow. Though Burnett is having a hard time seeing it right now for some reason?

5) I'm one that feels Bush can be a damn fine dime back at this level. That said, his impact on the teams unit when his mind is all in there is truly ace level. That was a damn good KR/PR right there but those guys had to sell out on Bush!

6) By far the best Shields has looked in a long time! Man's pure god given cover skills are special. If he keeps his mind right I truly hope we see him outside all year with Williams. I can't wait to see his play after the first time he is had for a big play. Man has been cutting some legs out this season also. My only Q right now is if he has that closer mindset. The ability to forget is often the key for young DB's. I was starting the think it might be a long term issue for Shields. Hope like hell I'm wrong because man is that ever a talent.

7) I like Benson, but why no Green? Hell of a lot of one back going on with Kuhn right now. Not that I have an issue there, but damn, that's Green's game!


Good breakdown, and I especially like point number 4. Packers defense has looked completely different since McMillian has taken over for Jennings. He's a bad call away from 2 picks on the season, and dropped another against the Niners. Strong in run support too, and seems to react well to what's happening in front of him. Would be huge moving forward if McMillian is legit as he's seemed so far.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Don049293


Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 129
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nishray wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
nishray wrote:
Brettizzle wrote:


You are mistaken;

The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."


"It's a player that's down and then he does that second act where he's getting up and intentionally rolling into the quarterback, or where he's getting up and he lunges at his legs," Fisher said. "We've got a lot of shots where guys have gone down, crawled, and swiped. We don't feel like that's potentially as injurious to the quarterback than the hit where the shoulder comes down to the knee or the planted leg."


Not following you: my point was that the hit on Wilson appeared to be a dive into his legs. Thus, it should not matter whether or not he was in the pocket. I don't quite see where in that article of the rulebook that is refuted?


not that you are prohibited from googling anything yourself, but I knew this was the rule before I googled, and I know it is the rule now. Wilson had lost the protection of section 1 (which i include below) as well as section 5 (which is quoted above):

PASSER OUT OF THE POCKET
Cool When the passer goes outside the pocket area and either continues moving with the ball (without
attempting to advance the ball as a runner) or throws while on the run, he loses the protection of the
one-step rule provided for in (1) above, and the protection against a low hit provided for in (5) above,
but he remains covered by all the other special protections afforded to a passer in the pocket
(numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7), as well as the regular unnecessary-roughness rules applicable to all player
positions. If the passer stops behind the line and clearly establishes a passing posture, he will then be
covered by all of the special protections for passers.

For reference:
(1) Roughing will be called if, in the Referee’s judgment, a pass rusher clearly should have known that the
ball had already left the passer’s hand before contact was made; pass rushers are responsible for
being aware of the position of the ball in passing situations; the Referee will use the release of the ball
from the passer’s hand as his guideline that the passer is now fully protected; once a pass has been
released by a passer, a rushing defender may make direct contact with the passer only up through
the rusher’s first step after such release (prior to second step hitting the ground); thereafter the rusher
must be making an attempt to avoid contact and must not continue to “drive through” or otherwise
forcibly contact the passer; incidental or inadvertent contact by a player who is easing up or being
blocked into the passer will not be considered significant.


Ah i see your point. I hadn't realized that low hits were allowed on QB's outside of the pocket, I definitely thought at the time that the PF was iffy, but I could see the argument. In that case, without having a replay of the hit itself on hand, I would agree with you. That does suck. It was certainly an impactful play - though I have read elsewhere that it was doubtful that the interception would not have stood on review.



thanks for being the real sport and admitting it As I was saying the whole time That call changes the whole game as bad as the call at the end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmoney


Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 1708
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
So I just broke this one down.

Few things that I saw that I have not talked about yet:

1) Hawk has come to play this year! Was told this off-season by a Green Bay staff member that the club asked Hawk to cut off 15 pound to help his short area skills. Well, he did so and has looked very good so far this season. Man sold his body to help stop Lynch Monday night. The stat line might not show his play. But go watch him stick his head right in the middle of that thing. Not a special talent, but man's a tough SOB.

2) It's a damn shame Rodgers had NO time in the first half there. Jennings got away a hand full of times as did DJ Williams.

3) That might have been the most blocking effort I have ever seen from Finley. Got into it a few times early and was playing mad. Damn shame we can't get "that guy" week in and week out. Would make the drops a good bit more easy to get over.

4) My god can 22 ever cover some grass!!! Fast is one thing but field fast is another. Damn guy makes Burnett look slow. Though Burnett is having a hard time seeing it right now for some reason?

5) I'm one that feels Bush can be a damn fine dime back at this level. That said, his impact on the teams unit when his mind is all in there is truly ace level. That was a damn good KR/PR right there but those guys had to sell out on Bush!

6) By far the best Shields has looked in a long time! Man's pure god given cover skills are special. If he keeps his mind right I truly hope we see him outside all year with Williams. I can't wait to see his play after the first time he is had for a big play. Man has been cutting some legs out this season also. My only Q right now is if he has that closer mindset. The ability to forget is often the key for young DB's. I was starting the think it might be a long term issue for Shields. Hope like hell I'm wrong because man is that ever a talent.

7) I like Benson, but why no Green? Hell of a lot of one back going on with Kuhn right now. Not that I have an issue there, but damn, that's Green's game!


Yeah McMillan is a guy that I am extremely excited about. When he was drafted, I couldn't find any highlights of him or anything, so I was wary of his 40 time. Now though, it definitely looks like it translates to the field. He's a little short, but other than that he's got every tool to be outstanding.

What was your take on Worthy? He seemed, active, saw him getting good pocket push on at least a couple occasions.

Shields has been very impressive, and Hayward has flashed as well in his limited dime opportunities.

Agree on Hawk. His movement skills definitely seem better this year, and he has been making a lot of plays. We'll see if he can keep it up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AHarris31


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 2271
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
Tooki wrote:
With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.
Rolling Eyes Since when can you hit a receiver before he has the ball and it not be pass interference? Cuz Kam got there early.


I took this picture from GameRewind: http://i.imgur.com/XNFRe.png

Definitely looks like he got there early. People are pointing to this because Gruden started a mini rant about how PI should 'call themselves'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
driftwood


Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 6145
Location: Milwaukee
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AHarris31 wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Tooki wrote:
With the Chancellor PI call, we are just saying that it directly resulted in a TD.It definitely changed the game.
Rolling Eyes Since when can you hit a receiver before he has the ball and it not be pass interference? Cuz Kam got there early.


I took this picture from GameRewind: http://i.imgur.com/XNFRe.png

Definitely looks like he got there early. People are pointing to this because Gruden started a mini rant about how PI should 'call themselves'.


IMO it was a bang-bang play... 50/50 call imo based on how close it was (regardless of what it led to that drive)

when you see it in real speed i thought it was actually good coverage so im not sure how upset i would have been had they not called it... but that call going our way was a spec of dust on the sun over what transpired in the last drive (considering the picture shows he hit finley by a fraction of a second early)

i can understand 'Seattle fan' being upset on that call because of how close it was, but it didn’t result in a TD directly (it merely extended the drive to one)... but to say that call made up for the blasphemy of the last 1:40+ seconds of the game isn’t even debatable

lets put it this way... the last minute 40 of the game is the reason the refs deal got done this week prior to tonights game as apposed to next week or later
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dubyajay


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1697
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SaveourSonics wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
nishray wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
^^^^ i read the writeup, which is predicated almost entirely on the coincidental fact that tate is on the ground with two feet which he believe determines possession. This is incorrect and a misinterpretation of the rulebook.

What about the fact that when a receiver catches the ball, if he is going to the ground (which tate undoubtedly is) he must maintain possession all the way to the ground. Which he does not as he takes his hand off the ball.

The other view provided is nice but shows me the same thing. Tate didn't have two hands on the ball, and only did after jennings grabbed the ball.

The simultaneous catch rule does not refer to possession, it refers to control. Control which can be lost, but the simultaneous part does not apply if one person had control first. Which jennings did. Incontrovertibly.


I disagree, it is not about control: the rule is named "the simultaneous catch", when I watch that first Q13 link in my post, it looks like its a catch being fought over between Tate and Jennings. It certainly looks closer to being caught by Jennings than Tate, but close enough to be simultaneous. Once again, its really close and really opinion based, I don't expect to change anybody's mind, only to reassure Packers fans that there is a reason why some Hawks fans believe that was a TD catch.


Yes, there is a reason why hawks fans believe it was a TD catch, lack of knowledge. That isn't meant as a slight, but control is part of the simultaneous rule, not possession or "catch" as you are referring to it as. Tate never controlled it, or if he ever did, he did so only after jennings had control. Meaning that the simultaneous part does NOT apply so the tie does NOT go to the offense. Words emphasized with caps for clarity only, not meaning to shout.


So how exactly did Tate NOT control the ball? I am curious and I am open-minded. Really interested in what your argument is going to be, can't wait to rebut it.


How on earth are you open-minded if you are already to rebut it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 35165
Location: 'Merica
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

skurey wrote:
TheGreatZepp wrote:
skurey wrote:
shut up all of you seahawk fans. take your win and go back to your forum.
That really isn't called for.


keep it up, you'll get your modship in no time


Consider this a warning.

Quote:
2. Personal attacks, name calling, and threats to other members are not allowed.


You've been around here long enough to know you can't do that. Either stick to football and discuss football or ignore other posters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32
Page 32 of 32

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group