- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,837
- 94,707
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
So salty those two Bills DBs.
NFL 2021 NFL - Week 13
- Thread starter balmainforever
- Start date
- Tagged users None
AmericanCrow
Premium Platinum
- Jun 17, 2015
- 20,224
- 28,219
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cleveland Browns, Indians and Cavs
Hmm don’t remember saying Stefanski was better than BB
I DO remember saying BB woulda been fired decades ago but for absolute blind luck
AmericanCrow
Premium Platinum
- Jun 17, 2015
- 20,224
- 28,219
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cleveland Browns, Indians and Cavs
Anyway, moral of the story
Run the damn ball—50 times if necessary
Run the damn ball—50 times if necessary
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,725
- 19,564
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,837
- 94,707
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
N’Keal Harry ruling was changed by new partial sky judge procedure, but was it the right call?
Posted by Mike Florio on December 7, 2021, 2:11 PM EST
The NFL has begun using the modified sky judge procedure this year, with the replay official and the league office now permitted to consult with the game officials on several specific, objective dynamics of rule application and game administration. That process was utilized last night to reverse an on-field finding that Patriots receiver N'Keal Harry did not touch a first-half punt by the Bills.
Although the apparent intervention of the replay official or the league office causes eyebrows to rise in suspicion that the powers-that-be are overstepping their bounds, it’s absolutely permitted for consultation to happen for specific aspects of the game, including penalty enforcement, the proper down, the spot of a foul, the game clock, possession of the ball, completion of a pass, interception of a pass, touching of a loose ball, boundary line, goal line, or end line, the location of the football or a player in relation to a boundary line, the line of scrimmage, the line to gain, or the goal line, or whether a player was down by contact.
Before such consultation can overturn the ruling on the field, clear and obvious evidence must be present to justify the change. The goal is to permit real-time assistance on an issue that, if there were a full-blown replay review, the ruling on the field would have been easily reversed.
As to the muff by Harry, the NFL has confirmed that the on-field officials did indeed receive assistance. Which means that the replay official or the league office concluded that clear and obvious visual evidence existed to support the conclusion that the ball touched Harry.
But is there clear and obvious evidence that the ball touched Harry? During the Manningcast, Eli suggested that perhaps the wind caused the ball to move, which is theoretically possible. As a practical matter, however, the question is whether clear and obvious evidence exists to support that the ball touched Harry’s helmet.
The ball definitely moved. However, a similar situation happened in 2015, during a game between the Bears and the Seahawks. During a punt, replay review explored whether the ball struck the leg of a Seattle player. In a weekly video, then-V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino explained that, to overturn the ruling on the field, there must be clear and obvious evidence that the ball actually touched the player.
“Does this ball really jump that far to the right where we think the ball clearly hit his leg?” Blandino said at the time. “It’s reasonable to assume that it hit his leg. But, again, we cannot make a decision based on the ball changing direction. We have to see clear evidence that the ball absolutely touched his leg.”
Said Eli last night, accurately: “You can’t tell if it hit. You see the ball move, but you can’t see it hit anything, I don’t think.”
Added Peyton: “The ball is the same color as the facemask, and so you can’t see [if] it his the facemask.”
In the haste to resolve this one without a full-blown replay review, whoever made the decision possibly forgot that, in a case like these, there must be clear and obvious that the ball touched the player. Movement of the ball, without actual visual evidence of contact, isn’t supposed to be enough. Last night, it apparently was.
Posted by Mike Florio on December 7, 2021, 2:11 PM EST
The NFL has begun using the modified sky judge procedure this year, with the replay official and the league office now permitted to consult with the game officials on several specific, objective dynamics of rule application and game administration. That process was utilized last night to reverse an on-field finding that Patriots receiver N'Keal Harry did not touch a first-half punt by the Bills.
Although the apparent intervention of the replay official or the league office causes eyebrows to rise in suspicion that the powers-that-be are overstepping their bounds, it’s absolutely permitted for consultation to happen for specific aspects of the game, including penalty enforcement, the proper down, the spot of a foul, the game clock, possession of the ball, completion of a pass, interception of a pass, touching of a loose ball, boundary line, goal line, or end line, the location of the football or a player in relation to a boundary line, the line of scrimmage, the line to gain, or the goal line, or whether a player was down by contact.
Before such consultation can overturn the ruling on the field, clear and obvious evidence must be present to justify the change. The goal is to permit real-time assistance on an issue that, if there were a full-blown replay review, the ruling on the field would have been easily reversed.
As to the muff by Harry, the NFL has confirmed that the on-field officials did indeed receive assistance. Which means that the replay official or the league office concluded that clear and obvious visual evidence existed to support the conclusion that the ball touched Harry.
But is there clear and obvious evidence that the ball touched Harry? During the Manningcast, Eli suggested that perhaps the wind caused the ball to move, which is theoretically possible. As a practical matter, however, the question is whether clear and obvious evidence exists to support that the ball touched Harry’s helmet.
The ball definitely moved. However, a similar situation happened in 2015, during a game between the Bears and the Seahawks. During a punt, replay review explored whether the ball struck the leg of a Seattle player. In a weekly video, then-V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino explained that, to overturn the ruling on the field, there must be clear and obvious evidence that the ball actually touched the player.
“Does this ball really jump that far to the right where we think the ball clearly hit his leg?” Blandino said at the time. “It’s reasonable to assume that it hit his leg. But, again, we cannot make a decision based on the ball changing direction. We have to see clear evidence that the ball absolutely touched his leg.”
Said Eli last night, accurately: “You can’t tell if it hit. You see the ball move, but you can’t see it hit anything, I don’t think.”
Added Peyton: “The ball is the same color as the facemask, and so you can’t see [if] it his the facemask.”
In the haste to resolve this one without a full-blown replay review, whoever made the decision possibly forgot that, in a case like these, there must be clear and obvious that the ball touched the player. Movement of the ball, without actual visual evidence of contact, isn’t supposed to be enough. Last night, it apparently was.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,837
- 94,707
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
McDermott salty too....
Sean McDermott: We lost because of sloppy football, not a Bill Belichick-type thing
Posted by Josh Alper on December 7, 2021, 6:37 AM EST
Patriots head coach Bill Belichick’s work in putting together a game plan to handle both the elements and the Bills on Monday night earned him a lot of praise during and after New England’s 14-10 victory.
Bills head coach Sean McDermott wasn’t so willing to credit Belichick’s work as the deciding factor in the game. McDermott pointed to a lost fumble in Patriots territory and the mistakes his team made during two fruitless trips into the red zone in the fourth quarter driving factors in why the Bills wound up on the wrong side of the final score.
“Let’s not give more credit than we need to give credit to Bill Belichick in this one,” McDermott said, via NESN.com. “Whether it was Bill or anybody else, they beat us, right? But you sit here and you tell me when we start with an average starting field position of the 40-yard line and he starts with the 23-yard line — I’m rounding up in both cases — and we were 1-for-4 in the red zone and they were 0-for-1 in the red zone? You give me that ahead of time, I’d say I like my chances. I like my chances. I don’t think, with all due respect, it’s not a Bill Belichick-type thing. It’s what are you doing with the opportunities you got? What are you doing with the opportunities you got? We turned the ball over on the plus-30-something yard line. Sloppy football. Sloppy football. I’m very comfortable in that situation.”
The Bills are now 3-4 since starting the season with a 4-1 record and they’ve been plagued by many of the same issues that hurt them on Monday throughout that stretch. That supports the notion that it wasn’t all about Belichick, but it probably won’t make anyone feel better about the state of the Bills right now.
Sean McDermott: We lost because of sloppy football, not a Bill Belichick-type thing
Posted by Josh Alper on December 7, 2021, 6:37 AM EST
Patriots head coach Bill Belichick’s work in putting together a game plan to handle both the elements and the Bills on Monday night earned him a lot of praise during and after New England’s 14-10 victory.
Bills head coach Sean McDermott wasn’t so willing to credit Belichick’s work as the deciding factor in the game. McDermott pointed to a lost fumble in Patriots territory and the mistakes his team made during two fruitless trips into the red zone in the fourth quarter driving factors in why the Bills wound up on the wrong side of the final score.
“Let’s not give more credit than we need to give credit to Bill Belichick in this one,” McDermott said, via NESN.com. “Whether it was Bill or anybody else, they beat us, right? But you sit here and you tell me when we start with an average starting field position of the 40-yard line and he starts with the 23-yard line — I’m rounding up in both cases — and we were 1-for-4 in the red zone and they were 0-for-1 in the red zone? You give me that ahead of time, I’d say I like my chances. I like my chances. I don’t think, with all due respect, it’s not a Bill Belichick-type thing. It’s what are you doing with the opportunities you got? What are you doing with the opportunities you got? We turned the ball over on the plus-30-something yard line. Sloppy football. Sloppy football. I’m very comfortable in that situation.”
The Bills are now 3-4 since starting the season with a 4-1 record and they’ve been plagued by many of the same issues that hurt them on Monday throughout that stretch. That supports the notion that it wasn’t all about Belichick, but it probably won’t make anyone feel better about the state of the Bills right now.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,837
- 94,707
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
John Harbaugh salty too (onfield)....
John Harbaugh declines to comment on Ravens’ intentional offside penalty
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 7, 2021, 6:26 AM EST
The Ravens employed a little-used strategy in Sunday’s loss to the Steelers, having safety Chuck Clark intentionally jump offside late in the game. But Ravens coach John Harbaugh didn’t want to talk about it.
“I don’t need to get into the strategy of it all,” Harbaugh said. “But sometimes, it is, [and] sometimes, it isn’t.”
It clearly was intentional. With the Steelers facing second-and-2, Clark blatantly jumped offside because the Ravens wanted to give the Steelers a free first down without running any more time off the clock. The Ravens’ thinking was that the Steelers, needing only two yards, were probably going to gain a first down anyway within the next two plays, and that would have allowed the Steelers to run more time off the clock. By giving the Steelers a first down on a penalty, the Ravens kept the clock stopped.
The Steelers should have declined the offside penalty, but they apparently didn’t realize what the Ravens were doing. But at some point, teams are going to catch on, because the Ravens have done this before: Clark also purposely jumped offside in similar situations in 2019 against the Bills and in 2020 against the Patriots. Clark is the Ravens’ designated late-game offside-jumper, and opposing teams should recognize that the next time it happens, they should decline the penalty.
John Harbaugh declines to comment on Ravens’ intentional offside penalty
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 7, 2021, 6:26 AM EST
The Ravens employed a little-used strategy in Sunday’s loss to the Steelers, having safety Chuck Clark intentionally jump offside late in the game. But Ravens coach John Harbaugh didn’t want to talk about it.
“I don’t need to get into the strategy of it all,” Harbaugh said. “But sometimes, it is, [and] sometimes, it isn’t.”
It clearly was intentional. With the Steelers facing second-and-2, Clark blatantly jumped offside because the Ravens wanted to give the Steelers a free first down without running any more time off the clock. The Ravens’ thinking was that the Steelers, needing only two yards, were probably going to gain a first down anyway within the next two plays, and that would have allowed the Steelers to run more time off the clock. By giving the Steelers a first down on a penalty, the Ravens kept the clock stopped.
The Steelers should have declined the offside penalty, but they apparently didn’t realize what the Ravens were doing. But at some point, teams are going to catch on, because the Ravens have done this before: Clark also purposely jumped offside in similar situations in 2019 against the Bills and in 2020 against the Patriots. Clark is the Ravens’ designated late-game offside-jumper, and opposing teams should recognize that the next time it happens, they should decline the penalty.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,837
- 94,707
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Bill Belichick says Patriots have played in “way, way worse” wind in Buffalo before
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 7, 2021, 5:28 AM EST
The Patriots employed an offensive game plan unheard of in the modern NFL to win on a windy night in Buffalo, but afterward Bill Belichick downplayed how bad the wind was.
Belichick acknowledged that the Patriots were playing in “conditions that were somewhat challenging,” but he said the Patriots have seen worse in Buffalo, specifically in the final game of the 2008 season.
“That was a lot worse,” Belichick said of the wind his team played in in Buffalo 13 years ago. “Way, way worse.”
In the 2008 game, the Patriots ran the ball 47 times and passed eight times as they won 13-0. On Monday night, the Patriots ran the ball 46 times and passed three times as they won 14-10.
“There was a lot of situational football that I thought for the most part we handled well,” Belichick said of Monday night’s game.
Still, Belichick noted that Bills quarterback Josh Allen completed 15 of 30 passes for 145 yards, with one touchdown and no interceptions, so it wasn’t like passing the ball was impossible.
“Josh did a good job throwing the ball out there,” Belichick said. “It was tough conditions and he slung it in there pretty good.”
The conditions made the game a fascinating chess match in which Belichick and Bills coach Sean McDermott took very different approaches. In the end, Belichick won the chess match, as he so often has in his coaching career.
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 7, 2021, 5:28 AM EST
The Patriots employed an offensive game plan unheard of in the modern NFL to win on a windy night in Buffalo, but afterward Bill Belichick downplayed how bad the wind was.
Belichick acknowledged that the Patriots were playing in “conditions that were somewhat challenging,” but he said the Patriots have seen worse in Buffalo, specifically in the final game of the 2008 season.
“That was a lot worse,” Belichick said of the wind his team played in in Buffalo 13 years ago. “Way, way worse.”
In the 2008 game, the Patriots ran the ball 47 times and passed eight times as they won 13-0. On Monday night, the Patriots ran the ball 46 times and passed three times as they won 14-10.
“There was a lot of situational football that I thought for the most part we handled well,” Belichick said of Monday night’s game.
Still, Belichick noted that Bills quarterback Josh Allen completed 15 of 30 passes for 145 yards, with one touchdown and no interceptions, so it wasn’t like passing the ball was impossible.
“Josh did a good job throwing the ball out there,” Belichick said. “It was tough conditions and he slung it in there pretty good.”
The conditions made the game a fascinating chess match in which Belichick and Bills coach Sean McDermott took very different approaches. In the end, Belichick won the chess match, as he so often has in his coaching career.
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,837
- 94,707
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Jordan Poyer, Micah Hyde bristle over question on Bills defensive performance
Posted by Curtis Crabtree on December 7, 2021, 12:41 AM EST
Buffalo Bills safeties Jordan Poyer and Micah Hyde were irked by a question in their post-game press availability following Monday night’s 14-10 loss to the New England Patriots.
The Patriots attempted just three total passes with two completions as windy conditions made throwing the ball a difficult task. The three passes thrown by the Patriots are the second-fewest in the Super Bowl era behind only the two passes attempted by the 1974 Bills in a game against the New York Jets.
That serves as the context for the question that led to the frustration. Via TSN Sports, local Buffalo reporter Jerry Sullivan asked the duo about whether they were embarrassed that they lost a game when their opponent completed just two pass attempts.
“Does that embarrass you?” they were asked.
Said Poyer: “What kind of question is that?”
Said Hyde: “What are we doing, bro?”
The Patriots rushed for 222 yards on 46 total carries on the night. They allowed a 64-yard touchdown to Damien Harris in the first quarter that accounted for a large portion of the yardage gained for the night. New England gained 158 yards on their other 45 rush attempts on the night.
“We made stops when we had to. They had one big run. I mean, they’ve got good backs,” Poyer said. “They kept coming back to a couple runs. I mean, I don’t know how you want us to answer that question.”
“That’s funny,” Hyde said. “We’ll remember that. I’ll remember that.”
The Patriots gained just 11 first downs to the 16 of the Bills. The only had two drives all game where they gained more than a single first down, both of which resulted in field goals. They only allowed one touchdown and 14 total points on the night.
Hyde and Poyer seemed to believe the query was an unfair assessment and indictment of their play against New England.
Hyde said it’s something he won’t forget.
“It’s respect. It’s all about respect,” Hyde said as he was leaving the room. “I come here every single week and I answer your questions truthfully, honestly. I appreciate you guys. Don’t do that. Don’t do that.”
Posted by Curtis Crabtree on December 7, 2021, 12:41 AM EST
Buffalo Bills safeties Jordan Poyer and Micah Hyde were irked by a question in their post-game press availability following Monday night’s 14-10 loss to the New England Patriots.
The Patriots attempted just three total passes with two completions as windy conditions made throwing the ball a difficult task. The three passes thrown by the Patriots are the second-fewest in the Super Bowl era behind only the two passes attempted by the 1974 Bills in a game against the New York Jets.
That serves as the context for the question that led to the frustration. Via TSN Sports, local Buffalo reporter Jerry Sullivan asked the duo about whether they were embarrassed that they lost a game when their opponent completed just two pass attempts.
“Does that embarrass you?” they were asked.
Said Poyer: “What kind of question is that?”
Said Hyde: “What are we doing, bro?”
The Patriots rushed for 222 yards on 46 total carries on the night. They allowed a 64-yard touchdown to Damien Harris in the first quarter that accounted for a large portion of the yardage gained for the night. New England gained 158 yards on their other 45 rush attempts on the night.
“We made stops when we had to. They had one big run. I mean, they’ve got good backs,” Poyer said. “They kept coming back to a couple runs. I mean, I don’t know how you want us to answer that question.”
“That’s funny,” Hyde said. “We’ll remember that. I’ll remember that.”
The Patriots gained just 11 first downs to the 16 of the Bills. The only had two drives all game where they gained more than a single first down, both of which resulted in field goals. They only allowed one touchdown and 14 total points on the night.
Hyde and Poyer seemed to believe the query was an unfair assessment and indictment of their play against New England.
Hyde said it’s something he won’t forget.
“It’s respect. It’s all about respect,” Hyde said as he was leaving the room. “I come here every single week and I answer your questions truthfully, honestly. I appreciate you guys. Don’t do that. Don’t do that.”
- Sep 6, 2005
- 144,837
- 94,707
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
TBF....the Bills D did well on D against the run, the loss was on the O, all those short fields, opportunities. Still, they got punked on D. Giving up that big rush TD was the difference.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,725
- 19,564
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
LOL this is very funny - oh, you turned the ball over on the plus-30-something yard line? Tell me, what was the field position when you scored your only touchdown for the game and how did that come about?
A11dAtP0w3R
Dumpster Fire Diver
- Oct 18, 2013
- 89,088
- 125,325
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Carolina Panthers
The Buffalo Salt Mines.
Precious fairies.
Precious fairies.
A11dAtP0w3R
Dumpster Fire Diver
- Oct 18, 2013
- 89,088
- 125,325
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Carolina Panthers
They did not. The Pats made no efforts whatsoever to hide what they were doing, they said we're going to run it and you cant stop it.
When a team is so transparent about what they are doing and you still cant stop it that makes it a truly pathetic performance.
- Apr 5, 2011
- 5,762
- 5,518
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Beantown
When you know what the other team is going to do and cannot stop it with 10 and sometimes, 11 man boxes, there's a problem.
The major issue the Bills have is they're built to play from in front meaning their DL is smaller but incredibly explosive, filled with pass rushers looking to get up field and after the QB. The fact the Patriots were able to match numbers with sheer size and other dominant run games have exploited their weakness is telling.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
lmfao... Joe Buck is the goat. hahaha
video title: Joe Buck DESTROYS Peyton Manning
For those that cant see it (doesnt seem to work for me here)
Here's what was said
Peyton Manning: Hey Joe, When ya'll have a blowout game, like do you ever wish that you and Troy could have a guest on there that you could interview?
Joe Buck: Yeah, you know the last time I thought about that was when you guys played Seattle in the Super Bowl
A11dAtP0w3R
Dumpster Fire Diver
- Oct 18, 2013
- 89,088
- 125,325
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Carolina Panthers
99% of NFL vids dont work here, they copyright everything for ads, that's why you have to go to YouTube to watch them.
