NFL 2012-13 Season

Status
Not open for further replies.
We've had blown calls by the refs directly affect the outcome of games in the recent past. Bad calls will continue to plague the game as long as there are human referees. Bad calls won't force the NFL back to the table. What could do that is if there is a major brawl on the field, the replacement refs can't get the situation under control, and someone is hurt badly.

Having said that, I'm not on the referees' side on this. It's still a part-time job, and they want full-time pay.
 
We've had blown calls by the refs directly affect the outcome of games in the recent past. Bad calls will continue to plague the game as long as there are human referees. Bad calls won't force the NFL back to the table. What could do that is if there is a major brawl on the field, the replacement refs can't get the situation under control, and someone is hurt badly.

Having said that, I'm not on the referees' side on this. It's still a part-time job, and they want full-time pay.

I thought it was the NFL that wanted to force the refs to work full-time??? (and lose their lucrative regular jobs)

What's the story?
 
I guess we'll have to wait until a game's outcome is decided by a bad call, non-call, or ruling. It came kinda close to that in the Niners/Packers game....

agreed. which means one of our teams is gonna have to take the bullet in order to get the ball rolling. :eek: if seattle would've won the game in the last moment vs arizona that would've been a big one. how hard is it to keep track of timeouts?
 
We've had blown calls by the refs directly affect the outcome of games in the recent past. Bad calls will continue to plague the game as long as there are human referees. Bad calls won't force the NFL back to the table. What could do that is if there is a major brawl on the field, the replacement refs can't get the situation under control, and someone is hurt badly.

Having said that, I'm not on the referees' side on this. It's still a part-time job, and they want full-time pay.
I agree with Bill regarding the uncertainty around their calls/rulings. This happened in a preseason game:

Another story showcasing these fine, upstanding men in the striped pajamas, aka the replacement officials: I cannot say which game this story happened in, but I can tell you it did happen. Final preseason game for two teams. Official calls defensive pass-interference in front of the penalized team's bench. Head coach lambastes the official. Official picks up the flag, tells the coach he's not going to make the call. Coach is stunned.
Imagine what will happen when something's actually at stake.
It's one thing when a fellow official talks you out of a call, but to be intimidated by a head coach??

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/02/mmqb/index.html
 
no offense but mcfadden is injury prone. unless he manages to stay healthy i wouldn't want him on my team. didn't say he's not talented but what good is talent when its not on the field. no?

I'd take the other side of that argument... I'd take McFadden, but only if he'd get 1/3 of the touches he gets with the Raiders. He's not a workhorse back but that's how they have to use him. He needs a better supporting cast and occasionally carry the full game load rather than every single game. Surely that was their plan last night but with the offense rarely finding any rhythm his backups had as many carries as their punter - 2.

Needs a Carolina type environment, multiple good RBs to share the load... though they forgot they had them this weekend.
 
all i need is for the raiders to use mcfadden as much as they did last night so the game plan i sent to the fins D* works! :eek: :D
 
I agree with Bill regarding the uncertainty around their calls/rulings. This happened in a preseason game:


It's one thing when a fellow official talks you out of a call, but to be intimidated by a head coach??

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/09/02/mmqb/index.html

Technically an officiating mistake should have let Oakland run one more play apparently http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...t-raiders-from-running-last-play-vs-chargers/

If anyone on the field knew that the last couple of plays would have unfolded differently though and both teams wouldn't have just walked off the field. I thought you had to fair catch it to get an untimed down after a punt but apparently not.
 
Well... that was a bizarro game.

1 touchdown until the final minute, snapper buffonery, and too many field goals.

That snapper buffonery was more of lack of experience and lack of preparation by our GOD awful special teams and their coaching staff. You have to be prepared for the worst...and putting in a guy that was a LB NOW and a long snapper in HIGH SCHOOL is not being prepared. I do not blame the player as much as I blame the coach. The 2 ground ball snaps and one good snap(but forgot to block) added to very short field to a top 10 QB equaled 3 FGs.
 
That snapper buffonery was more of lack of experience and lack of preparation by our GOD awful special teams and their coaching staff. You have to be prepared for the worst...and putting in a guy that was a LB NOW and a long snapper in HIGH SCHOOL is not being prepared. I do not blame the player as much as I blame the coach. The 2 ground ball snaps and one good snap(but forgot to block) added to very short field to a top 10 QB equaled 3 FGs.

i know many teams that handle this the same way. when we had jason taylor he was our backup for that position. no doubt that hurt you guys last night. long snappers are underrated in this league. ask the giants the significance of a good long snapper from that playoff game a few years ago.
 
Here's some fodder for discussion via PFT. Chiefs above Chargers is hilarious, but good point I suppose. Raiders win that game if they have a backup long snapper.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/11/week-one-power-rankings-3/

1. Patriots (1-0; No. 2 last week) (four first-place votes): With an improved defense and an improved running game, it will take much more than a busted nose for Tom Brady to keep the Pats from their first Super Bowl win since 2004.
2. 49ers (1-0; No. 7) (one first-place vote): It’s hard to imagine Week One going any better, even if they had managed to sign Peyton Manning.
3. Ravens (1-0; No. 4): It wasn’t a stirring as last year’s Week One win over the Steelers, but it’ll do.
4. Texans (1-0; No. 5): Yes, it was impressive. But the 2012 Dolphins are a far cry from their counterparts of 40 years ago.
5. Packers (0-1; No. 1): Thursday night’s game should have a postseason feel, because if the Packers fall to 0-2 with two home losses before the second Sunday of the season, the Packers may not feel the postseason this year.
6. Broncos (1-0; No. 14): Even the guy who paid for the Tebow billboards last year has bought a Peyton Manning jersey.
7. Giants (0-1; No. 2): They’ll be sliding more than five spots per week if they can’t find four (or five) defensive backs who can cover receivers.
8. Eagles (1-0; No. 9): A win is a win, but the teams that will be playing the Eagles over the next few months are surely feeling better about the chances of getting a win over Philly.
9. Steelers (0-1; No. 6): They saw some Tebowing late in Denver on Sunday. The goal for Sunday when the Jets come to town will be to avoid seeing any more of it.
10. Cowboys (1-0; No. 13): Tony Romo returns to Seattle for the first time since the time he had popcorn right before a game-winning field goal try.
11. Falcons (1-0; No. 10): The fact that five Internet hacks weren’t sufficiently impressed with Sunday’s performance to keep the Falcons at least where they were before the game underscores the fact that the Falcons won’t get respect until they command it.
12. Lions (1-0; No. 12): Rams quarterback Sam Bradford may not have stayed in school to avoid the Lions, but Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford didn’t do much to avoid throwing the ball to Rams.
13. Redskins (1-0; No. 24): Receiver Josh Morgan gushed last week about RG3. And it looked like an understatement on Sunday.
14. Bears (1-0; No. 11): Andrew Luck or no Andrew Luck, the PFT Power Rankings panel wasn’t impressed by a 20-point win over a 2-14 team. The Bears will get a chance to get noticed on Thursday at Lambeau.
15. Saints (0-1; No. 7): It’s hard not to wonder if the Saints would have looked better prepared if they had signed Drew Brees not before training camp but before the offseason program.
16. Jets (1-0; No. 22): The Jets may have been wise to bank a few of those 48 points for Sunday’s trip to Pittsburgh.
17. Chiefs (0-1; No. 19): They held their own with the Falcons, but those four missing starters on defense eventually caught up to the Chiefs.
18. Chargers (1-0; No. 20): When a team wins a game primarily because the other team’s backup long snapper sucks, that’s not an encouraging sign.
19. Panthers (0-1; No. 19): The PFT panel apparently thinks last Sunday was a fluke for Cam Newton and Carolina; others may be wondering whether last yearwas the fluke.
20. Cardinals (1-0; No. 25): Kevin Kolb gets yet another chance to not earn his money.
21. Raiders (0-1; No. 21): Of all the changes G.M. Reggie McKenzie has made, not having a backup plan at long snapper kept him from winning his first game.
22. Titans (0-1; No. 21): Somebody had to open the season by playing the Patriots. The good news is that the Titans don’t have to play them again.
23. Buccaneers (1-0; No. 23): Whether the players buy in to the Schiano system after one win remains to be seen. For now, the PFT panel remains skeptical.
24. Bengals (0-1; No. 24): The trend of beating teams they’re supposed to beat and losing to teams to which they’re supposed to lose continues.
25. Vikings (1-0; No. 25): Hey Vikes, win your next home game (Week Three against San Fran), and we’ll move you into the top 20.
26. Seahawks (0-1; No. 26): Braylon Edwards picked a strange way to show his appreciation for having a job.
27. Bills (0-1; No. 18): Mario Williams may want a Mulligan.
28. Colts (0-1; No. 26): If Andrew Luck wants to match Peyton Manning’s three-win rookie season, Luck needs to win at least one of the next two games, at home against the Vikings and Jagars.
29. Jaguars (0-1; No. 29): Does the fact that it could have been worse than a three-point loss in overtime make the loss any better?
30. Rams (0-1; No. 30): With a clock operator error marring the final minutes of a close one in Detroit, only the Rams could find new ways to lose games.
31. Dolphins (0-1; No. 31): It’s way too early to think the Dolphins won’t win a game this season. But they definitely don’t look like a team that can win a game this month.
32. Browns (0-1; No. 32): If Brandon Weeden wasn’t overwhelmed in putting up a 5.1 passer rating, we’d hate to see how bad his numbers would have been if he was.
 
What have I said wrong about the Raiders, cause I certainly am not saying anything positive about the Chiefs so that makes me foolish how?

What precisely did I say that was foolish? Really stupid penalties, poor OL and QB play, McFadden more than leaned on (over 30 touches for just over 100 yards rush/receiving), and poor playcalling. We'll leave special teams out of it as they go without saying.

You're dishing out the namecalling, so back it up. Ramy and Rey look foolish too because of how bad their team did? Or not because they didn't suggest the Raiders played poorly, that's all it takes?

Raiders are now 4-12 since giving up a 1st and 2nd for Palmer. If they don't travel well to Miami and take advantage of their offense that's still trying to find itself, they could pretty easily be 0-4 going into the bye after games vs the Steelers and @ Denver. If so that's 2 division and 3 conference losses, not a very easy path to a wild card berth.

Wanted to tackle this post all morning.

IF you would have said the above: "Really stupid penalties, poor OL and QB play, McFadden more than leaned on (over 30 touches for just over 100 yards rush/receiving), and poor playcalling. We'll leave special teams out of it as they go without saying..." ...to begin with. I would have agreed with most of it. But you quote was "Everything by McFadden needs work". That insinuates that he either not prepared...which I doubt highly or he is not good, which is more ridiculous than indicating that he was not prepared.

As far the QB play...Palmer threw NO interception, my some pretty good throws drove the team with what both the defense gave him and the Knapp called. He did not hurt the team at all. Something the analyst for the game, mentioned quite a bit..

As far as the name calling...please go back and find where I hurt your feelings and you names....
 
i know many teams that handle this the same way. when we had jason taylor he was our backup for that position. no doubt that hurt you guys last night. long snappers are underrated in this league. ask the giants the significance of a good long snapper from that playoff game a few years ago.

What really hurt is the most was those 3 crucial penalties that lead to 3 1st downs on 3rd downs...which led to their lone TD. I was VERY disappointed in the lack of guts to call plays for the WRs after Streater fumbled in the 1st quarter. San Diego deserves credit. Their defense keyed up on McFadden and they 'bent but did not break".

Our special teams is the worst I have EVER seen by any in the NFL....EVER. I saw that in the pre-season and they have done NOTHING to address.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure if it was the play calling or Palmer, but he turned into Captain Checkdown after a while... and then when he'd throw deep WRs weren't hanging on.

Current league leader in receptions in the NFL: Darren McFadden with 13. Runners up have only 9.

Amazing to me the SD defense didn't do more to explicitly cover DMC, not that the absurd broadcast team would have picked up on anything like that and talked about it.
 
Last edited:
We may not have many chances to say good things about San Diego this year, so I'll take this chance to say how well they capitalized on Oakland's mistakes. Drawing the defense offsides on those third down plays was not an accident. That was the result of a hard count that made an over-aggressive defense jump the gun. I hope that Philip Rivers not turning over the ball is a sign of a better season to come for him.
 
We may not have many chances to say good things about San Diego this year, so I'll take this chance to say how well they capitalized on Oakland's mistakes. Drawing the defense offsides on those third down plays was not an accident. That was the result of a hard count that made an over-aggressive defense jump the gun. I hope that Philip Rivers not turning over the ball is a sign of a better season to come for him.

Rivers did a great job taking what the defense was allowing. That was the short passes and on occasion..take a shot or two deep. The Raiders obvious weakness is in the corners....because the front 7 played as well as I have seen in a very long time.

Did I mention how much our special team blows chunks?!:tsk::tsk::tsk:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts