The Official 2009 NFL Thread

[Smallville]

LJ looks to be signing with Cincy. That seems about right with their track record right?

I saw that. The story said as insurance, maybe special teams right now. Hope the Cincinnati women keep their distance from him in the bars.

 

[nick77]

Who Dat!!! Go Saints!!!!!!!!

 

[Harry Longshanks]

Ravens and Browns, really?

Couldn't we just get a re-run of "Mama's Family" or something?

 

[TheGasman]

Ravens and Browns, really?

Couldn't we just get a re-run of "Mama's Family" or something?

 

[nick77]

Is it time to start comparing Quinn to Ryan Leaf?

 

[JB]

Is it time to start comparing Quinn to Ryan Leaf?

Nah. While both are terrible, Leaf was the 2nd pick in the draft and the Colts considered taking him #1. Quinn was 22nd IIRC and most teams felt he did not have it to be an early pick.

 

[Kmac]

Is it time to start comparing Quinn to Ryan Leaf?

No way. Leaf was the second (lol) pick in the draft. Quin sat in the draft room as everyone passed on him till the Browns traded with Dallas to get him. His team sucks. No line and no WR's. Cant blame him for that.

 

[JPsuff]

Somebody want to tell me again how a good college team couldn't beat Cleveland?

5 offensive TD's in what is now the last 15 games and based on last night's performance (which can best be described as a tragic comedy), I don't see the Brownies threatening that stat anytime soon. Especially with Brady (I've never had a receiver I couldn't over or under throw) Quinn at the controls.


-JP

 

[JB]

Keep dreaming. No college team could compete at any level with a NFL team. Detroit last year, Cleveland or tampa this year are. All of these teams are made up of college all stars.

 

[JPsuff]

Sends a heck of a message to your defense when you won't trust them to protect a 6 point lead with 2 minutes to go. Strangest play calling I can remember ever seeing. :confused2:

But it couldn't have happened to bigger jerk. :clapp:

First of all, I'm no Pats fan, but to be fair, they had that first down - even with the "bobble". But being in Indy, I think the refs gave the Colts the benefit of the doubt and (as it turns out) a last chance to win.

As for the call, I wasn't on the Patsie's sideline so who's to say whether it made sense or not? But I look at it this way: If that catch is made cleanly with no "bobble" at all, they get their first down and likely win the game, in which case they'd be talking about how Brady, Belichick, and the Patsies always "find a way" and yadda, yadda, yadda.

Their defense was a sieve all night and Belichick simply didn't trust it and tried to let the offense control the outcome and except for that momentary bobble (which I thought was controlled beyond or right at the line of gain) he made the right choice.


-JP

 

[Fourputt]

I agree with part of it, but I have to say that the guy had the first down. It was a terrible spot.

First of all, I'm no Pats fan, but to be fair, they had that first down - even with the "bobble". But being in Indy, I think the refs gave the Colts the benefit of the doubt and (as it turns out) a last chance to win.

As for the call, I wasn't on the Patsie's sideline so who's to say whether it made sense or not? But I look at it this way: If that catch is made cleanly with no "bobble" at all, they get their first down and likely win the game, in which case they'd be talking about how Brady, Belichick, and the Patsies always "find a way" and yadda, yadda, yadda.

Their defense was a sieve all night and Belichick simply didn't trust it and tried to let the offense control the outcome and except for that momentary bobble (which I thought was controlled beyond or right at the line of gain) he made the right choice.


-JP

I disagree that they made the 1st down. By the time he had control of the ball, it was on the 30 yard line, then he got knocked back further. They needed at least another foot to get the 1st. The camera angle was a bit deceiving, but the refs called it right.

Any way you look at it, that was a terrible decision for a team that styles itself as a top contender. You punt the ball to the Colts and if your defense can't keep Manning out of the end zone, then maybe you find out something about your team, but you don't go for it on 4th and 2 inside your own 30 with a 6 point lead. That's just nuts. :nono:

 

[Craig Mac]

Any way you look at it, that was a terrible decision for a team that styles itself as a top contender. You punt the ball to the Colts and if your defense can't keep Manning out of the end zone, then maybe you find out something about your team, but you don't go for it on 4th and 2 inside your own 20 with a 6 point lead. That's just nuts. :nono:

I agree FP.

As far as "the call" this best sums it up:
1) the bobble meant no possession 2) since he was in the act of going to the ground as the bobble occurred, possession could not be established until he hit the ground.

 

[JPsuff]

I agree FP.

As far as "the call" this best sums it up:
1) the bobble meant no possession 2) since he was in the act of going to the ground as the bobble occurred, possession could not be established until he hit the ground.

No.

You're not watching closely.

The ball was secured as soon as contact occurred - in fact, the contact is what hastened the possession and virtually forced the receiver's arms around the ball. So basically, the ball was secured long before he hit the ground and was in fact secured while he was still quite vertical and (in my opinion) beyond the line of gain - if only by inches.

But he was not bobbling the ball all the way to the ground.


-JP

 

[Craig Mac]

Well jp you are one of the very few that disagrees with the call, but really no suprise there at all

and that is your interpretation of what happened, I trust the refs

 

[bogeyme]

No.

You're not watching closely.

The ball was secured as soon as contact occurred - in fact, the contact is what hastened the possession and virtually forced the receiver's arms around the ball. So basically, the ball was secured long before he hit the ground and was in fact secured while he was still quite vertical and (in my opinion) beyond the line of gain - if only by inches.

But he was not bobbling the ball all the way to the ground.


-JP

Regardless of how you look at it, they were 4th and 2 which means you go atleast 3-5 yards farther for just in case. It's funny how everyone is bashing Billy Boy for this call. Would anyone be making a big deal out of it had it been a first down? Probably not. Everyone would be praising him for beating Indy and making them 8-1. If you get it you're a "god" if you don't you're a goat. If anyone needs to get their balls busted it is the reciever for not getting far enough past the sticks to insure a first down.

And no I'm not a Pats fan.

 

[Fourputt]

Regardless of how you look at it, they were 4th and 2 which means you go atleast 3-5 yards farther for just in case. It's funny how everyone is bashing Billy Boy for this call. Would anyone be making a big deal out of it had it been a first down? Probably not. Everyone would be praising him for beating Indy and making them 8-1. If you get it you're a "god" if you don't you're a goat. If anyone needs to get their balls busted it is the reciever for not getting far enough past the sticks to insure a first down.

And no I'm not a Pats fan.

I don't think so. I think there would still be a lot of head scratching regardless of the outcome. :confused2:

 

[JPsuff]

Well jp you are one of the very few that disagrees with the call, but really no suprise there at all

and that is your interpretation of what happened, I trust the refs

Well, I watched it like six times in slo-mo and from every angle they offered and I think he made it. I can't stand New England, but a bad call is a bad call no matter who it happens to.

Put it this way: If the same exact thing happened in Foxboro, it would likely have been ruled a catch and a first down (and please don't tell me that doesn't happen). Apparently, Belichick didn't have any challenges left and the play occurred outside of two minutes so there was no automatic review. But I believe that if there was one, it would have gone to the Patsies.


All I can say is that if you have a chance to see the play again, look at it very closely and you'll see what I'm talking about.



-JP

 

[JPsuff]

I don't think so. I think there would still be a lot of head scratching regardless of the outcome. :confused2:

I don't see where all of the "head scratching" comes from. They made a decision and as it turned out, it didn't work for them. But I don't think it was a bad call - especially in light of how the defense played (or didn't play) for New England. If he made a clean catch from the outset, this argument is academic at best.

Or look at it this way: If they punted and Indy ran back the punt to the 30 yard line, would THAT have been a bad call too?

-JP

 

[Craig Mac]

Well, I watched it like six times in slo-mo and from every angle they offered and I think he made it. I can't stand New England, but a bad call is a bad call no matter who it happens to.

Put it this way: If the same exact thing happened in Foxboro, it would likely have been ruled a catch and a first down (and please don't tell me that doesn't happen). Apparently, Belichick didn't have any challenges left and the play occurred outside of two minutes so there was no automatic review. But I believe that if there was one, it would have gone to the Patsies.


All I can say is that if you have a chance to see the play again, look at it very closely and you'll see what I'm talking about.


-JP

I was just giving the reasoning the refs spotted it where they did, I think either way it would have been called there would probably be two opinions. Not caring about either team it really didn't matter to me. What I did see was a great game.

 

[pjcedog]

Yeah I missed this one too. I get up too early for the late games but I expected to wake up to the Colts no longer being undefeated. What a moron going for it on your own 29. Duh.

And on another note Im glad to see all the talk about the refs in the GB Dallas game. They really missed that call on the fumble bad. And the challenge when you dont have one? That should have been a 15 yard penalty.

If I had Tom Brady and a near 80% success rate on 4th down tries I would do it too, besides they actually got the first down and were victimized by lousy officiating, the replay I saw the receiver was clearly past where the ball was marked down. The same with the Dallas/GB game I agree with you on that.

 

[Smallville]

I don't care what it was for. Even if it's something stupid, don't these guys know by now to have everything checked first? Another stupid move by an athlete who makes an incredible living playing a game.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10386190/Chiefs-WR-Bowe-suspended-for-drug-violation

Chiefs WR Bowe suspended for drug violation

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - Kansas City Chiefs wide receiver Dwayne Bowe has been suspended for four games for violating the NFL's policy against performance-enhancing substances. The team announced the suspension Tuesday and said it would have no further comment.

Bowe has been a bright spot in an otherwise dismal season for the Chiefs (2-7). He leads the team with 33 catches, including six catches for 91 yards last weekend in a win at Oakland. He also had a season-high 109 yards in the Chiefs' other win, at Washington.

The 25-year-old Bowe is in his third year in the NFL, all with Kansas City. He was a first-round draft pick in 2007 out of LSU, where his 26 touchdown receptions are a school record. In his 40-game NFL career, he has 189 catches for 2,483 yards (13.1 ypc) and 16 TDs.

The Chiefs are coming off a 16-10 victory over the Raiders heading into a home game against Pittsburgh. Kansas City has won just five of its past 35 games.

 

[JPsuff]

I was just giving the reasoning the refs spotted it where they did, I think either way it would have been called there would probably be two opinions. Not caring about either team it really didn't matter to me. What I did see was a great game.

Same here.

If both teams could have lost, that would suit me fine.

But it was a good game.




-JP

 

[bogeyme]

Rumor has it that if (or should I say when) Cleveland loses to Detroit this weekend that the Genious is going to be shown the door as soon as Monday. Of course Mr. Lerner is saying that the plan is to stay with Eric.

Let's Go Lions!!!

 

[pjcedog]

Somebody want to tell me again how a good college team couldn't beat Cleveland?

5 offensive TD's in what is now the last 15 games and based on last night's performance (which can best be described as a tragic comedy), I don't see the Brownies threatening that stat anytime soon. Especially with Brady (I've never had a receiver I couldn't over or under throw) Quinn at the controls.


-JP

3 reasons, smarter - faster - stronger by a factor of at least 100% across the board. The difference between college and pro is as big as the difference between high school and college football. In any given year out of thousands of college football players only a handful of players are able to play right away and make a significant contribution in the pros. Sorry but the worst pro team would easily beat a college team of all stars even if the all stars had 2 months to prepare.

 

[Smallville]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10277278/Raiders-bench-Russell,-likely-for-rest-of-'09

Raiders bench Russell, likely for rest of '09

ALAMEDA, Calif. (AP) - The Oakland Raiders benched former No. 1 overall pick JaMarcus Russell on Wednesday, handing the starting job to journeyman Bruce Gradkowski for the foreseeable future. Coach Tom Cable made the announcement of the change following practice as the Raiders (2-7) prepare to play the Cincinnati Bengals on Sunday. Cable said this was not a temporary move, that his plan is to stick with Gradkowski.

"I don't want to be like that," he said. "This is where we're headed and what we're going to do. He'll take this team and go with it."

Russell was not in the locker room during the media access period and was not available for comment after the decision was announced. Cable said Russell was disappointed by the decision but worked hard in practice Wednesday. Cable said owner Al Davis gave him the autonomy to make the decision on his own and supported the move.

"As we all know, it's important to include him in everything so he knows what's going on with this football team," Cable said.

Cable had pulled Russell for ineffectiveness in two of the past three games as he grew more frustrated with Russell's inaccuracy and poor decision-making in his third season in the NFL. The Raiders believed Russell would be the quarterback to turn the struggling franchise around when they drafted him No. 1 out of LSU in 2007 and eventually gave him a contract with about $31 million in guaranteed money. But his career has sputtered from the start.

He had a lengthy holdout as a rookie before finally signing his deal after the first game of the season. He played briefly down the stretch before getting the starting job a year ago. Russell was inconsistent in his first full season as a starter, but showed some bright signs with a strong finish to the season that included wins over Houston and Tampa Bay.

Instead of having a breakthrough in his third season, Russell has regressed and has been booed regularly at home games. He has completed just 46.8 percent of his passes this season, with nine interceptions and five lost fumbles and the second worst passer rating in the league at 47.7. Cable said he still believes in Russell's future even if all signs appear to be pointing to him becoming one of the more notable draft busts. Russell will be the No. 2 quarterback this week against the Bengals.

"This is in no way giving up on the guy," Cable said. "This is just trying to jump-start this team and really break it down and make a decision based on what gives us the best chance to win."

In 28 career games, Russell has completed 51.6 percent of his passes with 17 touchdowns, 21 interceptions and 14 lost fumbles for a passer rating of 65.5. He had started 25 of the past 26 games for Oakland, missing only one last year with an injury. The Raiders used top 10 picks the past two seasons to surround Russell with speedy playmakers, drafting running back Darren McFadden and receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey. But Oakland has been unable to generate a big-play offense, scoring just 88 points in the first nine games.

Russell has particularly struggled on the deep passes he was supposed to be so proficient with because of his big arm. According to STATS LLC, Russell has completed just 2 of 34 passes that have gone more than 20 yards downfield for 85 yards, one touchdown and five interceptions.

"We've got guys open, and I think we're getting better in understanding what we're doing," Cable said. "We've got to put the ball in their hands and find a way to do that. I think this will give us an opportunity to do that."

This will be just the second start for Gradkowski since 2006. He started one game last year in Cleveland, going 5-for-16 for 18 yards and two interceptions for a passer rating of 1.0 in a 31-0 loss to Pittsburgh. He started 11 games as a rookie for Tampa Bay in 2006, winning three of them. Gradkowski is 17 for 30 for 163 yards and two interceptions as a backup in Oakland this season. He tried to lead a comeback last week against Kansas City before his pass in the final minute deflected off receiver Heyward-Bey's hands and knees before being intercepted by Mike Brown around the 10-yard line to seal a 16-10 win for the Chiefs.

"I thought last week there were some good things and definitely some things to learn from," Gradkowski said before the decision was announced. "All we can do is keep working and get better."

Gradkowski got limited practice time with the first team for most of the season as the Raiders worked on developing Russell. He got a few more chances last week and now will get the bulk of the time with the first team. He expects that to be a big help this week against the Bengals.