Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=donofriose;1042355]I never said he was a smarter player, I said he has better instincts than RG3 when to get down, when to run on a pass play and running in general.

Cam Newton has played three seasons... hasn't missed a game. Part of that is size, no doubt. Part of that is him being able to slide and run out of bounds and not take unnecessary hits. I think a big part of that is also he rarely pitches the ball like RG3, which I think is the dumbest thing the Redskins do.

I see a big difference between there running styles. RG3 is a sprinter that sees a first down and will do anything to get it. Cam Newton is shiftier and has that 6th sense to him, similar to Russell Wilson. That is just my opinion on the two running styles.[/quote]

The Cam-RG3 comparison is an interesting one for sure. At this point last year, there were a lot of people down on Cam.. He wasn't developing as a passer, he needed to do a better job running the offense, he wasn't maturing as a leader, his game had 'regressed'...sound familiar?

Cam is definitely bigger and his frame is more suited for taking some hits. Instinctually I think he's more naturally inclined to football than RG3 from the standpoint of elusiveness and quick movements. If you think about it, we've never seen RG3 juke someone out of their shoes, he just outruns them. Cam has short area and open field moves that are more instinct than training and repetition.

Weapons wise on offense, we are very similar to the Panthers.. One standout WR and some fillers, a playmaking TE and a yardage eating RB (and a coach under fire). Watching to see if RG follows the Cam trajectory in year #3 to start translating that into wins.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Paintrain;1042386]The Cam-RG3 comparison is an interesting one for sure. At this point last year, there were a lot of people down on Cam.. He wasn't developing as a passer, he needed to do a better job running the offense, he wasn't maturing as a leader, his game had 'regressed'...sound familiar?

Cam is definitely bigger and his frame is more suited for taking some hits. Instinctually I think he's more naturally inclined to football than RG3 from the standpoint of elusiveness and quick movements. [B]If you think about it, we've never seen RG3 juke someone out of their shoes[/B], he just outruns them. Cam has short area and open field moves that are more instinct than training and repetition.

Weapons wise on offense, we are very similar to the Panthers.. One standout WR and some fillers, a playmaking TE and a yardage eating RB (and a coach under fire). Watching to see if RG follows the Cam trajectory in year #3 to start translating that into wins.[/quote]

Eh?

Just one example

[YT]uLv0hS5n5X0[/YT]

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Paintrain;1042386]The Cam-RG3 comparison is an interesting one for sure. At this point last year, there were a lot of people down on Cam.. He wasn't developing as a passer, he needed to do a better job running the offense, he wasn't maturing as a leader, his game had 'regressed'...sound familiar?

[B]Cam is definitely bigger and his frame is more suited for taking some hits. Instinctually I think he's more naturally inclined to football than RG3 from the standpoint of elusiveness and quick movements. If you think about it, we've never seen RG3 juke someone out of their shoes, he just outruns them. Cam has short area and open field moves that are more instinct than training and repetition. [/B]

Weapons wise on offense, we are very similar to the Panthers.. One standout WR and some fillers, a playmaking TE and a yardage eating RB (and a coach under fire). Watching to see if RG follows the Cam trajectory in year #3 to start translating that into wins.[/quote]

This is exactly what I am saying. I think RG3 will develop into a much better passer because Cam Newton is still inconsistent, except he unlike RG3 hasn't had knee surgery that has completely thrown off his mechanics.

I think the big difference between the Panthers and the Redskins are the front 7's and the Offensive lines. The Panthers obviously prioritized those two fronts, which I hope the Redskins do as well.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Mattyk;1042389]Eh?

Just one example

[YT]uLv0hS5n5X0[/YT][/quote]

Duly noted.. Is that the exception or the rule. How often does he break down in the open field and shake someone? It's honestly not a criticism, more of an observation in comparison of styles.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Paintrain;1042393]Duly noted.. Is that the exception or the rule. How often does he break down in the open field and shake someone? It's honestly not a criticism, more of an observation in comparison of styles.[/quote]

We've been watching him for almost 2 seasons now. You seriously don't ever see him get himself out of trouble by being elusive? Yes I think his speed and quickness are his main strengths when running but he's pretty darn elusive too.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Mattyk;1042399]We've been watching him for almost 2 seasons now. You seriously don't ever see him get himself out of trouble by being elusive? Yes I think his speed and quickness are his main strengths when running but he's pretty darn elusive too.[/quote]

Maybe I mis-stated it a little.. My point was that he's less likely than Cam to 'juke' than he is to outrun someone. Cam's running strength is being able to break tackles and break a defender down in space with a short area move. RG3's strength as a runner is to break down the tackling angles with his speed and beat someone to a spot and potentially turn the corner. Neither is better or worse or a criticism, just a difference in styles. Not to say that RG can't do those things, it's just not his primary running strength.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Mattyk;1042389]Eh?

Just one example

[YT]uLv0hS5n5X0[/YT][/quote]

What a difference between that offensive line and how those same guys are performing terribly this year.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Mattyk;1042399]We've been watching him for almost 2 seasons now. You seriously don't ever see him get himself out of trouble by being elusive? Yes I think his speed and quickness are his main strengths when running but he's pretty darn elusive too.[/quote]

One of my absolute "elusive" RGIII moments was in the second (?) Eagles game last year. Running down the sideline, looks like he is going to cut back into the field and an Eagle defender is just waiting to lower the boom. RGIII does a little spin out of bounds while giving the would be tackler an "O Le' " move. Just makes the Eagle player look stupid.

Around the NFL Week 11
 

Mike perrera - or whatever his name is - says it was a penalty.
So does Rich Gannon, and whatever Gannon says goes. ;)

Around the NFL Week 11
 

[QUOTE=EARTHQUAKE2689;1042362]There wasn't. Everyone gets mad at the refs for blowing games but when they make the call that is in line with the rule book, everyone turns into analysts. Luke Kuchely didn't wrap his hands around Gronk until the ball got to Lester. IF you wanna call defensive holding you have a better argument, but by pass interference rules that isnt it. When LaRon Landry had the exact same play in the 2007 playoff game against the Seahawks no one was crying there.[/QUOTE]

He absolutely held him before the ball got there.
Edit: dont remember the 07 call. I dont really give a crap about the Pats, lol. Just my opinion on the call. If the skins got that call for them im jumping for joy, if not im bitching and moaning - im a Skins fan. However even when the skins get a call in their favor I will still say its a bad call if i think it is one.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Paintrain;1042407]Maybe I mis-stated it a little.. [B][B]My point was that he's less likely than Cam to 'juke' than he is to outrun someone.[/B][/B] Cam's running strength is being able to break tackles and break a defender down in space with a short area move. RG3's strength as a runner is to break down the tackling angles with his speed and beat someone to a spot and potentially turn the corner. Neither is better or worse or a criticism, just a difference in styles. Not to say that RG can't do those things, it's just not his primary running strength.[/quote]

That's because Robert is faster than Cam.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Ruhskins;1042410]What a difference between that offensive line and how those same guys are performing terribly this year.[/quote]

Watching that video, I just realized why this team is losing this year. They got rid of the toilet collars! Bring back the toilet collars! LOL!

[IMG]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/11/20/2u2y9u7u.jpg[/IMG]
Just so were all clear on whether or not he was held before the ball got there....

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=punch it in;1042429][IMG]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/11/20/2u2y9u7u.jpg[/IMG]
Just so were all clear on whether or not he was held before the ball got there....[/quote]

I'm sorry. Could you make that picture any smaller?

[QUOTE=skinsguy;1042430]I'm sorry. Could you make that picture any smaller?[/QUOTE]

Looks big on my phone?

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=skinsguy;1042430]I'm sorry. Could you make that picture any smaller?[/quote]


lmao

Is it really small? Lol. It looks totally normal on my iphone.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=punch it in;1042429][IMG]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/11/20/2u2y9u7u.jpg[/IMG]
Just so were all clear on whether or not he was held before the ball got there....[/quote]

I dont think you, nor 90% of the people, understand the rule. It was pass interference, as evidenced by the ref throwing the flag, that is not in question. However, there is a rule in the NFL that if a ball is uncatchable, the pass interference is negated.

Which brings us to why was the ball ruled uncatchable? Because of another rule saying that if the ball is batted or intercepted by a defensive player before getting to the receiver, then its automatically ruled uncatchable. Since it was intercepted prior to arriving at Gronk, the ball being uncatchable rule is automatically put into effect.

Had the ball not been intercepted or deflected prior to arriving at Gronk, then the pass interference would have been enforced and NE would have the ball at the 1 and have one more play.

If you want to argue that its a stupid rule, so be it. But the ruling on the field based on the rules was the correct call. The interception automatically makes it considered an uncatchable ball. Once its ruled uncatchable, that negates the pass interference call.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

I believe it was uncatchable, but also think the penalty they threw on the Olsen pass was uncatchable. All penalties in a game are a judgment call the refs have to make. Only thing I don't understand is why couldn't they have called it holding, they do all the time on receivers who aren't the intended target.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=punch it in;1042436]Is it really small? Lol. It looks totally normal on my iphone.[/quote]

Yeah, it's pretty small. I'm looking at it on my computer.

Around the NFL Week 11
 

[QUOTE=Skinzman;1042438]I dont think you, nor 90% of the people, understand the rule. It was pass interference, as evidenced by the ref throwing the flag, that is not in question. However, there is a rule in the NFL that if a ball is uncatchable, the pass interference is negated.

Which brings us to why was the ball ruled uncatchable? Because of another rule saying that if the ball is batted or intercepted by a defensive player before getting to the receiver, then its automatically ruled uncatchable. Since it was intercepted prior to arriving at Gronk, the ball being uncatchable rule is automatically put into effect.

Had the ball not been intercepted or deflected prior to arriving at Gronk, then the pass interference would have been enforced and NE would have the ball at the 1 and have one more play.

If you want to argue that its a stupid rule, so be it. But the ruling on the field based on the rules was the correct call. The interception automatically makes it considered an uncatchable ball. Once its ruled uncatchable, that negates the pass interference call.[/QUOTE]

Yes but the ball was deflected BEFORE it got to Gronk BECAUSE Gronk was being held. You can assume in your head that there is no way Gronk is getting back to the ball before the defender intercepts it, but you cannot say definitively.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

Let's assume it's not pass interference based on the rule regarding an uncatchable ball.

Why isn't it defensive holding? LK had his arms hooked around Gronk and, in doing so, hindered his movement. It's not first and goal at the 1 but it should at least have been another offensive down.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=punch it in;1042447]Yes but the ball was deflected BEFORE it got to Gronk because Gronk was being held. You can assume in your head that there is no way Gronk is getting back to the ball before the defender intercepts it, but you cannot say definitively.[/quote]

It was intercepted before getting to Gronk because the DB read the play first and cut back in front of both of them.

If Gronk planted his foot and fought back for the ball, he would have put Kuechly on his ass. Gronk never made the attempt to come back to the ball so yes I can say that. Kuechly was not "driving" Gronk anywhere, just hugging him as they were both running to the back of the endzone.

Around the NFL Week 11
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1042448]Let's assume it's not pass interference based on the rule regarding an uncatchable ball.

Why isn't it defensive holding? LK had his arms hooked around Gronk and, in doing so, hindered his movement. It's not first and goal at the 1 but it should at least have been another offensive down.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, but Im not buying uncatchable ball. This was clearly a catchable ball. NFL officials are taught that a ball is uncatchable when it is clearly out of the field of play, or severely under or overthrown. It is not deemed uncatchable because the player is getting mugged while another player deflects or intercepts the ball. Him getting mugged negates the whole ball getting knocked down or intercepted before it reaches the opponent.

[QUOTE=Skinzman;1042450]It was intercepted before getting to Gronk because the DB read the play first and cut back in front of both of them.

If Gronk planted his foot and fought back for the ball, he would have put Kuechly on his ass. Gronk never made the attempt to come back to the ball so yes I can say that. Kuechly was not "driving" Gronk anywhere, just hugging him as they were both running to the back of the endzone.[/QUOTE]

So if u take kuechly out of the play entirely it unfolds the same way???

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1042448]Let's assume it's not pass interference based on the rule regarding an uncatchable ball.

Why isn't it defensive holding? LK had his arms hooked around Gronk and, in doing so, hindered his movement. It's not first and goal at the 1 but it should at least have been another offensive down.[/quote]

If im not mistaken, Once the ball is in the air being intended for Gronk, that makes any penalty that a defender commits against Gronk automatically pass interference. Holding is usually called when a receiver is not the intended target or before the ball is in the air if he is the intended target, such as grabbing his jersey right off the LOS. Not 100% sure on that one though.

If thats not the rule, then it should have been called defensive holding. As Kuechly was clearly hugging him.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Skinzman;1042438]I dont think you, nor 90% of the people, understand the rule. It was pass interference, as evidenced by the ref throwing the flag, that is not in question. However, there is a rule in the NFL that if a ball is uncatchable, the pass interference is negated.

Which brings us to why was the ball ruled uncatchable? Because of another rule saying that if the ball is batted or intercepted by a defensive player before getting to the receiver, then its automatically ruled uncatchable. [B]Since it was intercepted prior to arriving at Gronk, the ball being uncatchable rule is automatically put into effect.[/B]

Had the ball not been intercepted or deflected prior to arriving at Gronk, then the pass interference would have been enforced and NE would have the ball at the 1 and have one more play.

If you want to argue that its a stupid rule, so be it. But the ruling on the field based on the rules was the correct call. The interception automatically makes it considered an uncatchable ball. Once its ruled uncatchable, that negates the pass interference call.[/quote]

Ehhhhh......seeing the replay of that play - it was pass interference. In this case, it doesn't have anything to do with the ball being tipped or intercepted - because the ball wasn't tipped prior to the interference, and the INT happened [U]after[/U] Gronk was being interfered with. So the question comes down to if the ball was catchable. The defender impeded Gronk's ability to come back for the football. Looks to me that while it would have been a tough catch to make, Gronk could have had a shot at catching it. It wasn't so badly under thrown that Gronk could not have made a play for it if he wasn't being interfered with. It is a bad call.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=punch it in;1042454]So if u take kuechly out of the play entirely it unfolds the same way???[/quote]

Given that Gronk never attempts to adjust to the ball, yes.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1042448]Let's assume it's not pass interference based on the rule regarding an uncatchable ball.

Why isn't it defensive holding? LK had his arms hooked around Gronk and, in doing so, hindered his movement. It's not first and goal at the 1 but it should at least have been another offensive down.[/quote]

If they wanted to call defensive holding, I dont think anyone would have batted an eye.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

And I don't really buy the case of Gronk not making an attempt to come back for the football, because I don't think he was able to with the defender all over him. At least it should have been a holding penalty. Of course, ultimately, I don't care because I'm glad the hometown Panthers beat those Patriots.

Around the NFL Week 11
 

^ yup
Edit: eff the Pats

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=punch it in;1042454]So if u take kuechly out of the play entirely it unfolds the same way???[/quote]

Well, he wasn't unguarded. Kuechly would still be between him and the ball so he'd have to 1) get around him 2) plow through him to get to the pass. That pass was way too low and short for that to happen. Had he been out there on his own, it's very possible he could get it or at the very least meet up with the DB (who intercepted it) to fight for the ball.

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=Skinzman;1042438]I dont think you, nor 90% of the people, understand the rule. It was pass interference, as evidenced by the ref throwing the flag, that is not in question. However, there is a rule in the NFL that if a ball is uncatchable, the pass interference is negated.

Which brings us to why was the ball ruled uncatchable? Because of another rule saying that if the ball is batted or intercepted by a defensive player before getting to the receiver, then its automatically ruled uncatchable. Since it was intercepted prior to arriving at Gronk, the ball being uncatchable rule is automatically put into effect.

Had the ball not been intercepted or deflected prior to arriving at Gronk, then the pass interference would have been enforced and NE would have the ball at the 1 and have one more play.

If you want to argue that its a stupid rule, so be it. But the ruling on the field based on the rules was the correct call. The interception automatically makes it considered an uncatchable ball. Once its ruled uncatchable, that negates the pass interference call.[/quote]

Stupid rules helped the Pats get to the Super Bowl.

[QUOTE=Ruhskins;1042485]Stupid rules helped the Pats get to the Super Bowl.[/QUOTE]

All 5 times huh

Re: Around the NFL Week 11
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1042550]All 5 times huh[/quote]

Yes that's what I meant, all five times. I'm sorry for insulting the mighty Pats, I forget the great fan base they have here.

Pffft.

[SIZE="1"]Attempting to start a new WP beef[/SIZE]