DanteGabriel Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I went into Sunday hoping for a Colts win because I still feared the Broncos more than I feared the Colts. And then when it all wrapped up, I felt a little sad about how bad Manning looked. Now I think I didn't want it to end this way. At the very least, I wanted the showdown with Manning in Foxboro next week. Ah well. Go Pats. Go Packers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 ... The Colts are the only team left that I think can beat Seattle (matchups and all that). So I guess I'd break it down like this. If I were gonna put money on the Colts to beat the Patriots, I'd extend that bet to also winning the superbowl. Seattle is capable of having a bad game...if the Rodgers' 3rd and 4th targets play well again and they can get Lacy going they have a good chance of winning. It seemed like by the second half Rodgers had adjusted his throwing motion to the gimpy leg, mostly "arming" it. So it seems like he loses real bombs but keeps 25-30 yard throws. If the Packers are able to limit the Wilson/Lynch rushing total to 150 or less and be +1 or better on turnovers they win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Nah, you see it all the time. When a receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, they have to maintain complete control all the way through. Assuming that the entire sequence was "the act of receiving" then they called it correctly. He did NOT maintain control all the way through. HOWEVER, if it was Dez made the catch THEN tried to make a move, then it would have been a reception, fumble, then Dez recovers it for a touchdown. That is were there is interpretation. Yep, this exactly. And as others have pointed out, had it gone the other way (touchdown) they would be giving GB 2 mins, 4 down territory, and they only need to kick a field goal. So even if this goes the Cowboys direction it's not a likely winning scenario IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 More and more I think that Peyton Manning is going to be remembered as the Wilt Chamberlain of the NFL. They are both in some ways the greatest to ever play the game, both have stunning statistics, and yet both lack the postseason success of some less talented peers, let alone greats from other eras. Thus it is very hard to call him the GOAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 More and more I think that Peyton Manning is going to be remembered as the Wilt Chamberlain of the NFL. They are both in some ways the greatest to ever play the game, both have stunning statistics, and yet both lack the postseason success of some less talented peers, let alone greats from other eras. Thus it is very hard to call him the GOAT. Whoever is the GOAT now is just keeping the seat warm for Aaron Rodgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Regarding the Dez catch, I think Deadspin says it best: Football is a poorly designed sport to begin with (for example, mandating full contact while requiring subjective policing of the extent and degree of that contact), and the NFL's version of it is an an opaque feedback loop where detail and explanation are continually layered on in attempts to create clarity, but merely drag the game further away from anything resembling logic. How long would it take you to explain the game of football to an alien? A couple of minutes, tops, right? The NFL rulebook is more than 100 pages. Would any actual human being describe what Dez Bryant did as anything other than a catch? The NFL is not for human beings. More and more I think that Peyton Manning is going to be remembered as the Wilt Chamberlain of the NFL. They are both in some ways the greatest to ever play the game, both have stunning statistics, and yet both lack the postseason success of some less talented peers, let alone greats from other eras. Thus it is very hard to call him the GOAT. I think Wilt is a fair comparison. Which obviously would make Brady, Russell. Or at least he was that. It was a perfect analogue a decade ago. Now I don't know if he has a comparison. Maybe if they win the Superbowl this year, he becomes Tim Duncan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Peyton was apparenly playing with a torn quad, ouch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Peyton was apparenly playing with a torn quad, ouch Yea, I was just going to post this. Schefter just said that Manning has been playing with a torn quad the last month. It's why they leaned on the running game as much as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yeah, that news about Manning isn't surprising at all. You don't just "lose it" in the middle of a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm not buying it. Regardless, whether the horse just gets old and breaks down or just lames, you do the humane thing and terminate their contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm not buying it. Regardless, whether the horse just gets old and breaks down or just lames, you do the humane thing and terminate their contract. And replace him with who? Brock Osweiler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 And replace him with who? Brock Osweiler? There's not a can't miss prospect that the Broncos are in convenient position to draft who will actually be more versatile and have an even higher ceiling? I thought that was how these things work. I suppose they could trade for Jay Cutler if that first thing isn't an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 And replace him with who? Brock Osweiler? Get busy living. Or get busy dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 And replace him with who? Brock Osweiler? Considering how much cap room they'd be able to save for other players, they probably would be better with Osweiler than PFM. Assuming that his recent level of play is indicative of his future performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke_Lamora Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Nah, you see it all the time. When a receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, they have to maintain complete control all the way through. Assuming that the entire sequence was "the act of receiving" then they called it correctly. He did NOT maintain control all the way through. HOWEVER, if it was Dez made the catch THEN tried to make a move, then it would have been a reception, fumble, then Dez recovers it for a touchdown. That is were there is interpretation. Well it wouldn't have been a fumble at all because his right forearm would have been down prior to the fumble when his left forearm hits the ground. What I can't wrap my head around is why everyone, especially cowboy fans are trying to justify it as a catch and that the refs misinterpreted the rules. This is exactly what this rule was made for. If you want to argue that it was the correct call but this and the calvin johnson catch are reasons it is a silly rule, I still call BS. The CJ catch is what makes this rule silly, the Dez catch is what this rule was made for. What because Dez only barely lost possession instead of the ball flying away because of contact with the ground, and all of a sudden it should be called a catch? How silly does that sound. He lost possession while falling, end of. And PLEASE, no comments about 3 steps or that he was making a football move. Have a look at this: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24955005/packers-cowboys-6-things-to-know-about-the-dez-bryant-no-catch-game In particular the fox super zoom. His foot slipping out beneath him as hes falling would be his "third" step. Come on now. That is not a step by any means, let alone a step for a "football move" in which he was already falling. Also lets look at his reaching out for the goal line. As his right arm hits the ground is when he starts his "move" the middle of the ball is roughly at the middle of his facemask. At the end of this move, the tip of the ball is roughly at the middle of his facemask. So we are talking about a "football move" here of about 3-4 inches just before the ball slams into the ground which it would have done regardless of the "move". So now any receiver who is falling to the ground and may have it knocked out just simply has to move the ball an inch or so and can then claim a football move and hence a catch regardless if the ball flew out of their hands or not? If your answer is "of course not" (Hint: it should be) then I revert to my prior point, why does Dez "only" barely losing possession make grounds for calling this a catch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 For my part, I wasn't sure the ball actually touched the ground there. I thought it was clear the ball was popped into the air, but I wondered if it was an effect of the ball being squeezed between his bicep and forearm. So I actually thought he caught the ball on the second bounce in the endzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm not buying it. Regardless, whether the horse just gets old and breaks down or just lames, you do the humane thing and terminate their contract. http://s1336.photobucket.com/user/Lumpy67/media/OJsimpsonManning_zps96787281.jpg.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yeah, that news about Manning isn't surprising at all. You don't just "lose it" in the middle of a season. Guys lose it in the middle of the season all the time. Especially football players coming up on 39. Granted injury is often the culprit, but that's part and parcel with aging. You just get more brittle as you get older. He was running on fumes by last year's Superbowl too in terms of (lesser) Injuries to his legs. The torn quad, if true, is the proximal cause but if it wasn't that it would have been something else. He has no margin for error when it comes to getting nicked up because he's already so physically limited. It's the difference between what we saw from him on Sunday and what we saw from Rodgers. Honestly, the proof of seriousness of this injury to me will be whether PFM retires or not. He retires because he realizes he just doesn't have it anymore in a way that can sustain through an entire season. That even if he gets back to full health it'll just be a question of when he gets nicked up to the point where he can't get the ball where it needs to be against a playoff team. If he comes back though, I think it'll be because he believes the torn quad was a one-time freak injury and that if he can just avoid it next year, he can still win a Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Jaime is spot on. The question is not really so much as to whether he can play when healthy, but can he play through the bumps and bruises and nicks that are part of the normal NFL experience. 28 year old Peyton could probably have played through the quad injury and made up for it with pure arm strength. 38 year old, not so much. Time for PFM to sit back and enjoy the chicken parm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 NFL.com is calling it a 'strained quad'. Where is the 'torn quad' coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.