Next Day Thread: Redskins vs. Giants

[MisterPinstripe]

Here it is:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Gibbit said:

But was it done while he was establishing feet after the catch or afterwards? I think that may be a determining factor now...make the catch and establish the feet for possession then make some kind of legitimate move upfield after possession. The play was close if I remember right, but probably borderline either way. Video of it would be cool

The last shot near the end of the video is the best for seeing it. Was veeery close, I think it was a fumble.

[skinny21]

Last year, I’d have said no way that’s a catch.  This year?  I don’t know.  It is pretty darn close.  

[Morneblade]

Barely 2 steps. I'm not sure you can call that a fumble. Fact remains that was a nice play by Stroman.

[MisterPinstripe]

2 hours ago, Morneblade said:

Barely 2 steps. I'm not sure you can call that a fumble. Fact remains that was a nice play by Stroman.

I think key is the new emphasis on a football move versus steps. I think if it was called a fumble on the field it stands, but hard to say for sure.

[Morneblade]

37 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I think key is the new emphasis on a football move versus steps. I think if it was called a fumble on the field it stands, but hard to say for sure.

 

But can you make a football move in 2 steps? I don't really think so.

[MisterPinstripe]

7 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

But can you make a football move in 2 steps? I don't really think so.

Well think about the Dez Bryant none catch, which is why they made the change and said that should be a catch. He didn't take more than two steps but he made a football move which was catching the ball and the diving forward which resulted in him losing the ball and it being incomplete.

[bowhunter]

So in theory it's possible to catch the ball and just hold it, standing there  untouched for 3 seconds? If no "football move" is involved...this is getting nuts. By having to define a "catch" we now have to define a football move.

[Warhead36]

15 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

So in theory it's possible to catch the ball and just hold it, standing there  untouched for 3 seconds? If no "football move" is involved...this is getting nuts. By having to define a "catch" we now have to define a football move.

I think having clear possession of the ball for 3 seconds even if you're standing still is in of itself a football move.

[Morneblade]

1 hour ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Well think about the Dez Bryant none catch, which is why they made the change and said that should be a catch. He didn't take more than two steps but he made a football move which was catching the ball and the diving forward which resulted in him losing the ball and it being incomplete.

 

 Dez took 3 steps on that play actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1khK6is-Bfs

[skinny21]

2 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

 Dez took 3 steps on that play actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1khK6is-Bfs

He took 3 steps, but he double clutched the ball.  So one foot was already down when he secured the ball - so only two steps after possession.  Really should have included the dive though... given the ‘spirit of the rules’, that was obviously a catch IMO.  

 

Anyway, they’re looking at it a bit differently this year (which is why they ruled a catch and fumble by Dallas’ receiver against us, even without 3 steps).  I think that Stroman play was close enough that a review would have lead to the ruling on the field standing (whichever way they had called it).  The nature of those bang, bang plays though, in real-time, I think we’re going to see most of those called incompletions.  In other words, refs ‘correctly’ called it, and it wouldn’t have been overturned if challenged.  

[The Batman]

On 10/29/2018 at 8:31 AM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

1. DJ Swearinger.

 

2. DJ Swearinger

 

3. AP

 

The end.

 

No seriously, DJ Swearinger is playing on another level.  His attitude and “swag” to boot clearly rubs off on the unit as a whole.  That first pick, BOSS.

 

AP: I wanted to get him last year and some folks were hellbent on telling me he was washed up and when he had a bad game would post updates of his stat lines.  I didn’t watch the Cards enough to know what all went into it but it’s safe to say looking at Johnson fall

off a cliff this year, it’s the line.  It’s almost fairy tale like that our drafted “savior” at the position tears his ACL and the Hof’er is waiting for a call. 

 

That said, if I was to nitpick at all, it would be that I’d prefer Jay cut down on some of the shotgun runs and just let him pound the football up the middle.

 

I'm a lifelong Game****s fan and I can tell you that DJ was the heart and soul of our defensive identity. When he left, the play of everyone around him went down, even some of the same players, because he wasn't there to motivate and inspire. His attitude is infectious. He sets the tone, and we would do well to lock him up for years to come.

 

Edit: Thanks, chat filter. So proud to be a Game****s alum right now. Gonna update my resume.

[jbird2]

23 hours ago, London Kev said:

 

**** the giants, HTTR. 

 

OK, you've changed your original points a bit, but this is kind of fun, so... 

 

The odds don't matter, the fact is that the last 3 games we have won have been nail-biters that could have gone either way. Even dominating the Giants statistically, the scoreboard says otherwise and if you think the Giants were out of it, you have not been a fan of the Skins for very long.  I never said that I thought they were out of it, I just refuted your statement about us "barely" beating them and gave the probability as I saw it. Also (not that it matters) but I've been a fan since 1983.  In my little mind, any time an opposing team can score once and tie/win we barely beat them. Now anyone watching the game could see that we were the better overall team, but dad-gum we should have been a couple scores ahead. You and I became fans around the same time. My cousin and I were running around grandma's house during the holidays pretending to be Riggo and Monk.

 

Yeah any given Sunday I hear ya....... So 7 sacks against the Pats are about the same as 7 sacks against the Giants?  No, 7 sacks against the Pats would be very impressive, 7 sacks against the giants was quite impressive, like I said. Ok, Ok, 7 sacks against the Gmen was impressive, but I would like to see that kind of statistical domination against teams with a better quality of OL. I know, I know, you would too..... 

 

I doubt it as well, but if any team could do it, Bama could beat the Giants this season.  No, no they really couldn't. It will never happen so we cannot prove it, and you are probably right, but I would like Bama's chances this year against the Gmen and I cannot lie!

 

Go ahead and argue that Smith and RK have been monsters this year. No way. They have been adequate and with the performance of the DL adequate OLB play is a waste of opportunity. Shoot, Lorenzo Alexander has the same number of sacks as Kerrigan so far this year at this point....  I don't need to argue that they have been monsters, you said "non-effective" which is incorrect. If you're now saying that they haven't been as effective as was expected then I agree, but non-effective is just wrong. Ok, can we agree that they have been "Adequate"? Sure by the end of the year RK may have his best sack season ever, and PSmith typically starts slow, and no they may not need to be monsters, but based on their current talent and previous results they have been barely adequate. If we are going to call that effective fine. lets call that effective.

 

Perine is going to step in and get it done? Smith is going to start chucking it 300 yards with 2-3 TD per game, especially with teams focusing on the run? Zero I say, zero Offense if AP goes down.  Again, this is just hyperbole (now with a little straw-man thrown in for good luck) Do you really think that we would have zero yards passing and zero yards rushing without Peterson? We would struggle without him for sure, but zero? Come on.  No, it would not be zero, it would probably be less than 0... more like negative yards..... Fine, maybe I exaggerate a tad. Maybe Smith and Reed would catch fire, but boy oh boy, this O would be a dumpster fire without AP's running. I am SOOOO glad that Guice is getting a close-up look at AP's prep, running style and all around heart. 

 

Yep 7 of 12. (That is almost 50/50 territory) for 38 yards (over 3 yards per catch!!!) MONSTER! He even has 1 TD almost halfway through the year!!! (0 in the last 6 games) Glad we checked the stats........GIVE THE MAN A RAISE!!!! He has remained healthy this year, I will give him credit for that, but 1 td all year, and 4 catches per game for 43 yards per game is pretty pedestrian for $9.3 mil per year. (5th highest salary on the team)  But you originally said that the TEs disappeared in the giants game, which they obviously didn't. Reed had 7 catches for 38 yards (5.4 yards per catch!!!). My funny math was looking at 12 targets as opposed to 7 catches. You are right. 5.4 yards per catch is the actual number. This moves him into ProBowl area for sure. //Sarcasm.... Missing 5 of his targets and only getting 38 yards is something we could probably ask Vernon to do for a big $$ savings. Reed needs to turn up the production

 

Agreed! The next few games will be a real test.  Smith has been finding some success with his WR's so there may be help coming in the coming weeks. If we are to make any noise in the paloffs we better hope so. Hopefully the D continues to play lights out, and AP runs like it is 2008.  We finally agree on something. LOL We probably agree on more than we are willing to admit... lol

 

Actually I did thanks! I'm glad, I did too.

 

Look, all this copying, pasting and bolding isn't as fun as I first thought. I've got no problem with you whatsoever, but you did quote me (still not sure why?) and then go into some nonsensical rant full of exaggerations, which is why I originally replied so sarcastically. If you want to have the last word on this little (enjoyable) exchange, then go for it, but all I'll probably do is "like" your post and move on.   I have enjoyed debating with you. I am not sure why you were quoted in my original nonsensical rant FULL OF EXAGGERATIONS... WHAT?!?!? This is the most over-the-top accusation I have EVER been accused of!!! I tell you that at least 15% of my post was not exaggerations and made 99% sense!! lol  

[Gibbit]

8 hours ago, bowhunter said:

So in theory it's possible to catch the ball and just hold it, standing there  untouched for 3 seconds? If no "football move" is involved...this is getting nuts. By having to define a "catch" we now have to define a football move.

The catch is two feet down...Shepard was running so his two feet down was taking two steps. That's why I don't think him tucking the ball into his gut counted because he did it before he actually gained possession? If that makes sense.

If you catch it with both feet down, stand there for 3 seconds and get it knocked out...Id wager theyre going to call that a fumble, then check you for concussion

[Morneblade]

5 hours ago, skinny21 said:

He took 3 steps, but he double clutched the ball.  So one foot was already down when he secured the ball - so only two steps after possession.  Really should have included the dive though... given the ‘spirit of the rules’, that was obviously a catch IMO.  

 

Anyway, they’re looking at it a bit differently this year (which is why they ruled a catch and fumble by Dallas’ receiver against us, even without 3 steps).  I think that Stroman play was close enough that a review would have lead to the ruling on the field standing (whichever way they had called it).  The nature of those bang, bang plays though, in real-time, I think we’re going to see most of those called incompletions.  In other words, refs ‘correctly’ called it, and it wouldn’t have been overturned if challenged.  

 

Where did he double clutch the ball?

 

Not that it really matters. As to the Stroman play, I don't think it was as close you you think. I think it was a incompletion, he would have had to either

1. take another step

2. do something more than try to secure the ball.

 

Basically I don't think it's worth going back and forth, that it should have been a fumble and we should have thrown a challenge flag. To me, it's not close enough to consider that, even under the new rules. It was a good play by Stroman, and I think it's going to help with his confidence level going forward.

[MassSkinsFan]

On 10/30/2018 at 8:47 PM, London Kev said:

I agree that if AP went down then the offense would be severely hampered. Saying that it would be zero is just hyperbole though..

 

Exactly!

 

Watch the run plays. Don’t look at AP. Watch the OL. 

 

Those guys are opening holes in the D; sometimes huge holes. 

 

Dont get get me wrong- I think AP is amazing. But the OL run blocking is making him even better. 

 

It’s no coincidence that Bibbs looks pretty good when he gets the rock. 

[London Kev]

2 hours ago, jbird said:

  I have enjoyed debating with you. I am not sure why you were quoted in my original nonsensical rant FULL OF EXAGGERATIONS... WHAT?!?!? This is the most over-the-top accusation I have EVER been accused of!!! I tell you that at least 15% of my post was not exaggerations and made 99% sense!! lol  

 

For the millionth time, will you stop exaggerating! 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

 

Where did he double clutch the ball?

 

Not that it really matters. As to the Stroman play, I don't think it was as close you you think. I think it was a incompletion, he would have had to either

1. take another step

2. do something more than try to secure the ball.

 

Basically I don't think it's worth going back and forth, that it should have been a fumble and we should have thrown a challenge flag. To me, it's not close enough to consider that, even under the new rules. It was a good play by Stroman, and I think it's going to help with his confidence level going forward.

Double clutch is easiest to see at 1:42 mark.  Hard to tell if his foot is down at the time he ‘repossesses’ it.  Doesn’t matter of course, because he made a football move after having two feet down.  

 

I probably wouldn’t have challenged the Stroman play.  You may be right that it wasn’t as close as I think it was.  If he finishes that step or tucks the ball away though, it was a catch.  Yes, he was only halfway through his step, but I tend to think he was really close to tucking it away, just maybe hadn’t finished doing so (close call).  I’m assuming you don’t think he tucked the ball away?  And that he wasn’t close to doing so?

[Gibbit]

The real question is would it have been a td if caught in the end zone. I’d imagine there would be similar bang bang plays a second after two feet are down in the end zone. If the league is calling them tds, then the stroman play was a fumble

[Morneblade]

1 hour ago, Gibbit said:

The real question is would it have been a td if caught in the end zone. I’d imagine there would be similar bang bang plays a second after two feet are down in the end zone. If the league is calling them tds, then the stroman play was a fumble

 

Nope.

[jbird2]

16 hours ago, London Kev said:

 

For the millionth time, will you stop exaggerating! 

for the millionth and 1 time, I NEVER EVER Exaggerate!