SPORTS BALL!!! v2.0

[Xprimentyl]

Huh, that's why the Patriots have a team rule to not extend the ball into the endzone.

I'd have been fine with the call had Higgins been careless with the ball and dropped it legitimately, but it was the flagrant and uncalled targeting that caused the fumble. Diving TDs are nothing new; they happen all the time and can be quite exciting; to have one not only negated, but the offensive team penalized because a defensive player launched himself head first into the runner's head is just grossly negligent on the refs' part.

Watch the film below; Sorensen CLEARLY puts his hands to his sides in an attempt to attain maximum, head-first momentum into Higgins' head; he didn't even attempt a legit tackle, yet the refs only saw the fumble. How can they continue to act like player safety is paramount when in HUGE games like the playoffs, they miss the most egregious infractions? I watched at home hundreds of miles away; I saw it. My girlfriend doesn't even know the rules; SHE saw it. Every pundit on television is talking about it; THEY saw it. Yet, somehow, despite being on the field with intimate knowledge of ALL the rules, the refs missed it, and the Chiefs won by one point less than the Browns would have earned less that dirty, dangerous hit. This is the equivalent of you getting read-ended by a drunk driver, and the officer citing YOU for not wearing your seat belt while the drunk driver stumbles off to the AFC championship game.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'd have been fine with the call had Higgins been careless with the ball and dropped it legitimately, but it was the flagrant and uncalled targeting that caused the fumble. Diving TDs are nothing new; they happen all the time and can be quite exciting; to have one not only negated, but the offensive team penalized because a defensive player launched himself head first into the runner's head is just grossly negligent on the refs' part.

Watch the film below; Sorensen CLEARLY puts his hands to his sides in an attempt to attain maximum, head-first momentum into Higgins' head; he didn't even attempt a legit tackle, yet the refs only saw the fumble. How can they continue to act like player safety is paramount when in HUGE games like the playoffs, they miss the most egregious infractions? I watched at home hundreds of miles away; I saw it. My girlfriend doesn't even know the rules; SHE saw it. Every pundit on television is talking about it; THEY saw it. Yet, somehow, despite being on the field with intimate knowledge of ALL the rules, the refs missed it, and the Chiefs won by one point less than the Browns would have earned less that dirty, dangerous hit. This is the equivalent of you getting read-ended by a drunk driver, and the officer citing YOU for not wearing your seat belt while the drunk driver stumbles off to the AFC championship game.

I'm not a fan of the leading with your helmet rule. I fully understand the safety reasoning but you can't play football and not lead with your helmet at times. I think by the letter of the rule, you can call it on every play, especially on running backs (as the rule applies to both offensive and defensive players) when they lower themselves to fall forward for that extra yard or 2. Just watching that play live as I stopped the video after that because refs don't have that luxury of seeing replays, I really don't see anything to call the penalty on. The receiver is diving for the endzone, the corner or safety is diving to stop him from getting into the endzone. If the defender doesn't dive, there's no way he has a chance at stopping the touchdown. Maybe the defender's intent was for the hit vs blocking the endzone, but when you have 2 players both diving to a common point, both are really breaking the rule. You can even argue that the receiver lowered his head 1st to initiate contact according to the letter of the rule.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I'm not a fan of the leading with your helmet rule. I fully understand the safety reasoning but you can't play football and not lead with your helmet at times. I think by the letter of the rule, you can call it on every play, especially on running backs (as the rule applies to both offensive and defensive players) when they lower themselves to fall forward for that extra yard or 2. Just watching that play live as I stopped the video after that because refs don't have that luxury of seeing replays, I really don't see anything to call the penalty on.

What can’t you see? Targeting isn’t just lowering your head; targeting is lowering the head to initiate contact, most egregious being when it’s to initiate contact with the head or neck area of another player; that footage is TEXTBOOK targeting. Yes, runners lower their heads all the time, but it’s most often in an attempt to mitigated incoming collisions and protect themselves, NOT to weaponize their helmet; there’s a vast difference between “tucking your head” and “using your head as a battering ram;” everyone knows this and hence we have the distinct targeting rule. Sorensen can be seen lowering his arms (no attempt to grapple or tackle,) then lunging himself like a missile directly into Higgins’ head.

The receiver is diving for the endzone, the corner or safety is diving to stop him from getting into the endzone. If the defender doesn't dive, there's no way he has a chance at stopping the touchdown.

You’re right; the chances of him making a legal tackle in that case were slim-to-none, which is why as a defense, your job is to prevent the offence from putting you in that position in the first place. When you fail, the other teams puts up points; that’s the game and why we watch; doesn’t mean you resort to “any means necessary” when you’ve failed to do your job up to a crucial moment.

Maybe the defender's intent was for the hit vs blocking the endzone, but when you have 2 players both diving to a common point, both are really breaking the rule. You can even argue that the receiver lowered his head 1st to initiate contact according to the letter of the rule.

Higgins was not breaking any rule; Higgins was moving forward with his arms outstretched with the ball; Sorensen was moving perpendicular to Higgins leading with the crown of his helmet. Common point? Higgins was trying to break the plane; Sorensen was trying to stop him ILLEGALLY by potentially breaking both their necks. I understand heat of the moment and desperation, but “that’s the only way I could stop him” isn’t reason enough to let a poor defensive showing off the hook, with the ball afterwards to boot. Had Sorensen at least had his arms out first and it led to incidental helmet-to-helmet contact, I’d be completely fine with the call, but since he’s clearly throwing his entire mass behind the most armored part of his body at Higgins’ head, it was simply wrong and he should have been ejected; Browns should have gotten 1st and goal and likely would have scored; all things else go the same as they did, Browns 24, Chiefs 22. Of course, I can’t say that’s what “certainly” would have happened, but big plays shift momentum, and an ejection followed by an opponent’s scoring would have rattled the cages for the Chiefs, and given how they barely hung on for the duration, I imagine the Browns could have taken them down. Chalk this game up as yet another asterisk in the books of the 2020 season.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

What can’t you see? Targeting isn’t just lowering your head; targeting is lowering the head to initiate contact, most egregious being when it’s to initiate contact with the head or neck area of another player; that footage is TEXTBOOK targeting. Yes, runners lower their heads all the time, but it’s most often in an attempt to mitigated incoming collisions and protect themselves, NOT to weaponize their helmet; there’s a vast difference between “tucking your head” and “using your head as a battering ram;” everyone knows this and hence we have the distinct targeting rule. Sorensen can be seen lowering his arms (no attempt to grapple or tackle,) then lunging himself like a missile directly into Higgins’ head.



You’re right; the chances of him making a legal tackle in that case were slim-to-none, which is why as a defense, your job is to prevent the offence from putting you in that position in the first place. When you fail, the other teams puts up points; that’s the game and why we watch; doesn’t mean you resort to “any means necessary” when you’ve failed to do your job up to a crucial moment.



Higgins was not breaking any rule; Higgins was moving forward with his arms outstretched with the ball; Sorensen was moving perpendicular to Higgins leading with the crown of his helmet. Common point? Higgins was trying to break the plane; Sorensen was trying to stop him ILLEGALLY by potentially breaking both their necks. I understand heat of the moment and desperation, but “that’s the only way I could stop him” isn’t reason enough to let a poor defensive showing off the hook, with the ball afterwards to boot. Had Sorensen at least had his arms out first and it led to incidental helmet-to-helmet contact, I’d be completely fine with the call, but since he’s clearly throwing his entire mass behind the most armored part of his body at Higgins’ head, it was simply wrong and he should have been ejected; Browns should have gotten 1st and goal and likely would have scored; all things else go the same as they did, Browns 24, Chiefs 22. Of course, I can’t say that’s what “certainly” would have happened, but big plays shift momentum, and an ejection followed by an opponent’s scoring would have rattled the cages for the Chiefs, and given how they barely hung on for the duration, I imagine the Browns could have taken them down. Chalk this game up as yet another asterisk in the books of the 2020 season.

It's a bang-bang play. I will say it's a bit odd that he didn't dive with his arms out. Maybe in that split second he thought that wouldn't be enough force to push him out of bounds. Maybe he dove with the intention of hitting with his shoulder vs helmet and miscalculated a bit. I really don't think you can claim, especially in real-time, that his intent was making helmet-to-helmet contact. The ref does really have a lot of stuff to watch on a play like that. I really don't think you can tell defensive players you just have to let guys into the endzone at that point either. I don't care for the logic in saying the defense's job is to prevent someone from getting within diving range of the endzone, you're there to prevent people getting into the endzone, you can't change it to "oh, it's the 1 or 2 yard line instead". You can also claim it's on the offensive player for not putting themself in the position to where you can have a touchback situation in that instance. Like I said, it's a team rule of the Patriots for that to not even happen in the 1st place.

 

[Xprimentyl]

It's a bang-bang play. I will say it's a bit odd that he didn't dive with his arms out. Maybe in that split second he thought that wouldn't be enough force to push him out of bounds. Maybe he dove with the intention of hitting with his shoulder vs helmet and miscalculated a bit. I really don't think you can claim, especially in real-time, that his intent was making helmet-to-helmet contact.

I agree his intention was not likely helmet-to-helmet, but that's exactly what happened (difference between murder and manslaughter.) The potential for injury on both sides of the impact is so high, it's why they are trained to tackle properly, not lead with the helmet, and why targeting is an ejectable penalty, but Sorensen did exactly that here, and they blew it off as the offense's mishandling of the ball.

The ref does really have a lot of stuff to watch on a play like that. I really don't think you can tell defensive players you just have to let guys into the endzone at that point either.

Yes, there's a lot going on in real-time; refs miss calls all the time, but just as every scoring play is reviewed, I think any play as game-changing as that one was should be reviewed as well, let's say every goal-line play. They would have seen the targeting (as everyone now has) and made the right call. Also, I'm not saying he had to just let the guy in the end zone, but had he been faster, more aware, his options to stop Higgins wouldn't have dwindled to foul play. You can't just pull out all the stops with zero accountability; that's why PEDs are regulated; every guy could be bigger, faster, stronger if allowed to "do whatever it takes" to do so, but it's not allowed for a reason.

I don't care for the logic in saying the defense's job is to prevent someone from getting within diving range of the endzone, you're there to prevent people getting into the endzone, you can't change it to "oh, it's the 1 or 2 yard line instead". You can also claim it's on the offensive player for not putting themself in the position to where you can have a touchback situation in that instance. Like I said, it's a team rule of the Patriots for that to not even happen in the 1st place.

Agreed, everyone has a job to do. But in this case, one player was doing whatever it took within the guidelines of safe and legal play to execute his job, and the other resorted to dirty, dangerous and illegal play; intentional helmet-to-helmet or not, he led with the crown of his helmet; he INTENDED to do that; at that point, before ANY contact was made, he was wrong, and that CAN be seen in real time. The Patriots can make whatever rules they want (including watching film of opponents taken surreptitiously, deflating balls, etc.,) but the fact remains, diving ball-first is a high risk/high reward option that is quite common, safely within the bounds of the rules and entirely dependent upon player ability; leading with the helmet to initiate contact with an effectively defenseless player is none of those things. My point, even if Higgins had managed to hold on to the ball and score, Sorensen should still have been called for his actions and ejected.

I get where you're coming from; I've been known to say "just let them play football" and gripe about nit-picky holding or interference calls many a time, but targeting is NEVER ok. We've learned too many stories of these guys suffering life-long injury and damage from playing like the refs aren't watching, and sometimes they get away with it, but when the whole sports-watching world sees it, and the punishment is you get the ball and a fresh set of downs, it's clear the list of which plays are and are not reviewable itself needs to be reviewed.

 

[09philj]

My beloved, hapless, Newcastle United are not having a particularly good season. They've played eighteen matches so far (Of thirty eight), losing nine and drawing four more. The only thing standing between us and relegation to the championship are the similar levels of uselessness on display at Brighton and Burnley and the catastrophic ineptitude of Fulham, West Brom, and Sheffield United.

 

[SckizoBoy]

The only thing standing between us and relegation to the championship are the similar levels of uselessness on display at Brighton and Burnley and the catastrophic ineptitude of Fulham, West Brom, and Sheffield United.

I was going to comment that I haven't followed the EPL in a few years (lost interest in footie for no good reason a while ago) and wondered how Fulham were doing. Now I know. Yay, they got back into the Premiership, sigh, they're yoyo-ing as usual(!)

Chelsea & Arsenal in mid-table is a bit surreal (both below the Hammers, no less), and Leicester at the top is an interesting novelty (been there before, IIRC), we'll see if they can stick it out. And Man U making what looks like a resurgence at last? Interesting, interesting...

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I agree his intention was not likely helmet-to-helmet, but that's exactly what happened (difference between murder and manslaughter.) The potential for injury on both sides of the impact is so high, it's why they are trained to tackle properly, not lead with the helmet, and why targeting is an ejectable penalty, but Sorensen did exactly that here, and they blew it off as the offense's mishandling of the ball.

Yes, there's a lot going on in real-time; refs miss calls all the time, but just as every scoring play is reviewed, I think any play as game-changing as that one was should be reviewed as well, let's say every goal-line play. They would have seen the targeting (as everyone now has) and made the right call. Also, I'm not saying he had to just let the guy in the end zone, but had he been faster, more aware, his options to stop Higgins wouldn't have dwindled to foul play. You can't just pull out all the stops with zero accountability; that's why PEDs are regulated; every guy could be bigger, faster, stronger if allowed to "do whatever it takes" to do so, but it's not allowed for a reason.

Agreed, everyone has a job to do. But in this case, one player was doing whatever it took within the guidelines of safe and legal play to execute his job, and the other resorted to dirty, dangerous and illegal play; intentional helmet-to-helmet or not, he led with the crown of his helmet; he INTENDED to do that; at that point, before ANY contact was made, he was wrong, and that CAN be seen in real time. The Patriots can make whatever rules they want (including watching film of opponents taken surreptitiously, deflating balls, etc.,) but the fact remains, diving ball-first is a high risk/high reward option that is quite common, safely within the bounds of the rules and entirely dependent upon player ability; leading with the helmet to initiate contact with an effectively defenseless player is none of those things. My point, even if Higgins had managed to hold on to the ball and score, Sorensen should still have been called for his actions and ejected.

I get where you're coming from; I've been known to say "just let them play football" and gripe about nit-picky holding or interference calls many a time, but targeting is NEVER ok. We've learned too many stories of these guys suffering life-long injury and damage from playing like the refs aren't watching, and sometimes they get away with it, but when the whole sports-watching world sees it, and the punishment is you get the ball and a fresh set of downs, it's clear the list of which plays are and are not reviewable itself needs to be reviewed.

You're definitely right with the letter of the rule and everything. It's just hard to call that in real-time. The replay shows in like 5 seconds what happened in like a half second, which makes the play look a lot longer than it is and makes you think the player also had all that time to premeditate the hit. Tony and the commentator didn't even mention the hit in the replay either because they were looking at the ball and when it came out and everything. The ref has to keep track of the ball, the goal line and out of bounds line. Plus, the refs are used of paying attention to certain things on certain plays that they feel is high priority and that rule is rather new so it's hard to also look for this new thing when you got to look for all these other things at the same time and you got used to just looking at those other things over 10, 20, 30 years of reffing. Also, it's not one of those type of hits you see in real-time and you think, was that legal because that was a killer hit.

Nobody is trained to tackle players diving with the ball. That wasn't a high risk/high reward play though, it was high risk but the reward of a touchdown vs 1st and goal on the 1 isn't high reward, plus time wasn't an issue, they could've ran 4 straight run plays to get into the endzone and time wouldn't be a factor. Sure, if time had run out or it was 3rd/4th and goal, that would be high reward/high risk.

 

[Jarrito3002]

I am conflicted I do love me some Chiefs but I want the Bills to keep going and I want Mahommes to be heathy. Do I want Brady to keep going I don't but that would have me the cheer for the packers.

Overall this NFL playoffs have me conflicted in the best way and I love it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

You're definitely right with the letter of the rule and everything. It's just hard to call that in real-time. The replay shows in like 5 seconds what happened in like a half second, which makes the play look a lot longer than it is and makes you think the player also had all that time to premeditate the hit. Tony and the commentator didn't even mention the hit in the replay either because they were looking at the ball and when it came out and everything. The ref has to keep track of the ball, the goal line and out of bounds line. Plus, the refs are used of paying attention to certain things on certain plays that they feel is high priority and that rule is rather new so it's hard to also look for this new thing when you got to look for all these other things at the same time and you got used to just looking at those other things over 10, 20, 30 years of reffing. Also, it's not one of those type of hits you see in real-time and you think, was that legal because that was a killer hit.

Nobody is trained to tackle players diving with the ball. That wasn't a high risk/high reward play though, it was high risk but the reward of a touchdown vs 1st and goal on the 1 isn't high reward, plus time wasn't an issue, they could've ran 4 straight run plays to get into the endzone and time wouldn't be a factor. Sure, if time had run out or it was 3rd/4th and goal, that would be high reward/high risk.

We can "coulda, woulda, shoulda" all day; let's just agree that more plays need to be reviewable, particularly those that involve goal-line, score/no score action. The offensive goal of every play is to score; the defense, to prevent that from happening; this play in particular saw both sides desperate to do their jobs, and it unfortunately went the way of the side playing dirty ball. Also, it was a high risk/high reward play; any ball carrier would have dove that close to the goal line; it's not like his decision was anomalous or even unusual. Higgins knew they were playing the Chiefs, a team already in the lead and infamous for racking up insane amounts of points in the latter half of a game; every point counted, and a "certain six" sounded a lot better than a fresh set of downs and a "maybe six later." He only fumbled because he got illegally clocked in the damn head; had Sorensen even attempted a legal tackle (which film shows he didn't,) the Browns would have scored; Higgins did nothing wrong, and he and the Browns were punished.

I am conflicted I do love me some Chiefs but I want the Bills to keep going and I want Mahommes to be heathy. Do I want Brady to keep going I don't but that would have me the cheer for the packers.

Overall this NFL playoffs have me conflicted in the best way and I love it.

I wish I felt this ambivalence. My season went like this:

Go Niners!!

*Niners don't make the playoffs*

Browns are in the playoffs? Go Browns!

*Browns eliminated from the playoffs due to some questionable officiating.*

Fine, at least the Saints are rolling strong!

*Saints are eliminated from the playoffs by a 109-year-old veteran with already 6 rings to his credit.*

Well fuck. Go... Packers? Maybe Bills?

To say I don't have a dog in this fight is an understatement. I love good football, so I want good games this weekend and for the Super Bowl, but I really couldn't be arsed to have a preference as to who wins at this point. Kinda makes it hard to watch when you truly don't care, but I'm not complaining. About the only preference I have is that I don't want Tom Brady to win; Jesus Christ, dude, hang it up; you're running out of fingers and are about 6 months shy of being a grandfather. I know it's cliche to hate on winners, but dammit, there are so many other legacies being built under his reign of forever, I'm ready to turn the page. Watching Brees walk out of his stadium after that loss (likely his last game) just felt like a gut punch. He might be the only non-49ers jersey I ever own, I love that guy a LOT, and what he's done for the franchise, city of New Orleans and football in general will always be far greater than some dude hanging around for 9 decades and winning all the time.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

We can "coulda, woulda, shoulda" all day; let's just agree that more plays need to be reviewable, particularly those that involve goal-line, score/no score action. The offensive goal of every play is to score; the defense, to prevent that from happening; this play in particular saw both sides desperate to do their jobs, and it unfortunately went the way of the side playing dirty ball. Also, it was a high risk/high reward play; any ball carrier would have dove that close to the goal line; it's not like his decision was anomalous or even unusual. Higgins knew they were playing the Chiefs, a team already in the lead and infamous for racking up insane amounts of points in the latter half of a game; every point counted, and a "certain six" sounded a lot better than a fresh set of downs and a "maybe six later." He only fumbled because he got illegally clocked in the damn head; had Sorensen even attempted a legal tackle (which film shows he didn't,) the Browns would have scored; Higgins did nothing wrong, and he and the Browns were punished.

I'm all for more plays being reviewable, it's pretty stupid how that whole reviewable pass interference went where they like never overturned obvious ones and then did away with it.

You gotta know the current game situation. And that was not a situation that merited the risk of a touchback incident happening. Not only will it be 1st and goal on the 1 but you also can run out more time, just as you say, the Chiefs can rack up insane amounts of points, which they can do in basically very little time as well. The Chiefs literally went down to score a field goal afterward. Say he scores the TD and the Chiefs get the field goal (kickoff is probably a touchback obviously), it's only 4 points you ended up getting basically. Even if you run the ball 3 times and don't score, you kick a field goal and end up getting 3 points with no time left, which is only 1 point less than other scenario. Players in online shooters do that type of risky stuff all the time for little reward. The thing that makes the great players great is doing all the little things and being 100% conscious of the current game situation, just not dying is usually the more beneficial play vs going out and trying to get a pointless kill.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I'm all for more plays being reviewable, it's pretty stupid how that whole reviewable pass interference went where they like never overturned obvious ones and then did away with it.

You gotta know the current game situation. And that was not a situation that merited the risk of a touchback incident happening. Not only will it be 1st and goal on the 1 but you also can run out more time, just as you say, the Chiefs can rack up insane amounts of points, which they can do in basically very little time as well. The Chiefs literally went down to score a field goal afterward. Say he scores the TD and the Chiefs get the field goal (kickoff is probably a touchback obviously), it's only 4 points you ended up getting basically. Even if you run the ball 3 times and don't score, you kick a field goal and end up getting 3 points with no time left, which is only 1 point less than other scenario. Players in online shooters do that type of risky stuff all the time for little reward. The thing that makes the great players great is doing all the little things and being 100% conscious of the current game situation, just not dying is usually the more beneficial play vs going out and trying to get a pointless kill.

I can agree with most of what you say, but the Browns, coming off back-to-back wins against not only one of the favored teams going into the playoffs, but "Big Brother" in their division, shouldn't be expected to "play it safe" when points are on the field; Higgins went for the points, Sorensen denied him by playing dirty and wasn't held accountable. That's my issue. Using your analogy of online gamers, Higgins was conscientious of what was going on on the field and was playing to win, NOT to the odds (skill); Sorensen saw the same thing and resorted to playing outside of the bounds of legal play to force his will (hacking.)

I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just not giving as much leeway to dirty play. The Browns could easily have played conservatively and settled for the 1st down, but ask any runner/receiver to stop short of the goal line when 6 points is theirs for the taking; 100% would defy that ask; Higgins defied that ask and did what he could for his 6; Sorensen saw it and resorted to an illegal hit to deny him that. One person is wrong in that scenario.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I can agree with most of what you say, but the Browns, coming off back-to-back wins against not only one of the favored teams going into the playoffs, but "Big Brother" in their division, shouldn't be expected to "play it safe" when points are on the field; Higgins went for the points, Sorensen denied him by playing dirty and wasn't held accountable. That's my issue. Using your analogy of online gamers, Higgins was conscientious of what was going on on the field and was playing to win, NOT to the odds (skill); Sorensen saw the same thing and resorted to playing outside of the bounds of legal play to force his will (hacking.)

I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just not giving as much leeway to dirty play. The Browns could easily have played conservatively and settled for the 1st down, but ask any runner/receiver to stop short of the goal line when 6 points is theirs for the taking; 100% would defy that ask; Higgins defied that ask and did what he could for his 6; Sorensen saw it and resorted to an illegal hit to deny him that. One person is wrong in that scenario.

I wasn't saying to play it safe but play it smart. There's a reason why the Patriots have won so much (barring the cheating obviously), it is because they do play smart. It's a team rule to not extend for touchdowns because that is playing smart. Without the hit, Higgins could've just lost control of the ball when extending it out, I've seen that happen. You say the offense's goal every play is to score, same with the defense denying a score, but that isn't true. The Falcons lost a game this year because Gurley realized a split second too late that scoring a TD only lowered their chances of winning and he literally fell into the endzone trying to not score. There was one Super Bowl IIRC where the Patriots literally let the running back into the endzone with no resistance because it gave them a better chance to win. Players should be asked to do anything to help win the game, sometimes it involves doing the opposite of what you would normally do.

Here's a shooter example from one of my Ghost Recon squad matches. The short of it is every objective nets you 100 points and you got 3 minutes to do it or hold it basically (matches are 15 mins). At the time mark there an HVT (high-value target) objective popped up for the other team and if they kill our player that is the HVT, another objective would pop up. So the play there was to run out the time on the HVT objective (and let the other team have the objective) because we were up by 2 objectives. The other team can't win if another objective doesn't come into play. Notice how I immediately start running back to our spawn the second it happens (and telling, which you can't hear, the HVT to run back as well). I knew instantly that was the play.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I wasn't saying to play it safe but play it smart. There's a reason why the Patriots have won so much (barring the cheating obviously), it is because they do play smart. It's a team rule to not extend for touchdowns because that is playing smart. Without the hit, Higgins could've just lost control of the ball when extending it out, I've seen that happen. You say the offense's goal every play is to score, same with the defense denying a score, but that isn't true. The Falcons lost a game this year because Gurley realized a split second too late that scoring a TD only lowered their chances of winning and he literally fell into the endzone trying to not score. There was one Super Bowl IIRC where the Patriots literally let the running back into the endzone with no resistance because it gave them a better chance to win. Players should be asked to do anything to help win the game, sometimes it involves doing the opposite of what you would normally do.

Here's a shooter example from one of my Ghost Recon squad matches. The short of it is every objective nets you 100 points and you got 3 minutes to do it or hold it basically (matches are 15 mins). At the time mark there an HVT (high-value target) objective popped up for the other team and if they kill our player that is the HVT, another objective would pop up. So the play there was to run out the time on the HVT objective (and let the other team have the objective) because we were up by 2 objectives. The other team can't win if another objective doesn't come into play. Notice how I immediately start running back to our spawn the second it happens (and telling, which you can't hear, the HVT to run back as well). I knew instantly that was the play.

I'm not in disagreement at all; the Browns could have played it "smarter" (read "conservatively,") but it wasn't a lack of situational awareness that lost them the ball; it was the fact that their perfectly viable scoring play was mitigated by an intentionally dirty hit, i.e.: Sorensen led with his helmet; all else be damned. Doesn't matter if he hit his head, ankle or anywhere in between, leading with the crown, hands at your sides, is an ejectable offence. I refuse to victim shame the Browns when what crippled them was basically a no-call on the most egregious and violent penalty in the game.

I wouldn't be this passionate had the Chiefs gone on to win 45 to 17 or something that showed they were clearly the better team, but the fact that they negated a Browns' scoring drive by effectively cheating and only won by 5 leads me to believe they're not as good as everyone with real estate in Mahomes' anal cavity believes them to be. The Browns deserved better after all this time of mediocrity, doubt and despair, and if the lesson that's been taught is that playing hard the right way gets you punished, then where's the integrity of the game? Vegas? Does everyone just "expect" a Brady or Rodgers vs. Mahomes Super Bowl therefor that's what they're going to ensure happens?

No, I'm not cultivating a grander officiating conspiracy; I'm not that naive; just a disappointed NFL fan that wanted a better story than "exactly what everyone predicted since mid-season." I fear we're seeing the next Patriots-esque legacy building in KC, and if that's the case, fine; I just don't want it built on the shoulders and in the face of teams that have been desperate for success attained through hard work and persistence over simple talent acquisition.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm not in disagreement at all; the Browns could have played it "smarter" (read "conservatively,") but it wasn't a lack of situational awareness that lost them the ball; it was the fact that their perfectly viable scoring play was mitigated by an intentionally dirty hit, i.e.: Sorensen led with his helmet; all else be damned. Doesn't matter if he hit his head, ankle or anywhere in between, leading with the crown, hands at your sides, is an ejectable offence. I refuse to victim shame the Browns when what crippled them was basically a no-call on the most egregious and violent penalty in the game.

I wouldn't be this passionate had the Chiefs gone on to win 45 to 17 or something that showed they were clearly the better team, but the fact that they negated a Browns' scoring drive by effectively cheating and only won by 5 leads me to believe they're not as good as everyone with real estate in Mahomes' anal cavity believes them to be. The Browns deserved better after all this time of mediocrity, doubt and despair, and if the lesson that's been taught is that playing hard the right way gets you punished, then where's the integrity of the game? Vegas? Does everyone just "expect" a Brady or Rodgers vs. Mahomes Super Bowl therefor that's what they're going to ensure happens?

No, I'm not cultivating a grander officiating conspiracy; I'm not that naive; just a disappointed NFL fan that wanted a better story than "exactly what everyone predicted since mid-season." I fear we're seeing the next Patriots-esque legacy building in KC, and if that's the case, fine; I just don't want it built on the shoulders and in the face of teams that have been desperate for success attained through hard work and persistence over simple talent acquisition.

It's about not putting yourself in that position in the first place. If I was a coach I would have a team rule about extending the ball as well (especially prior to 3rd down or it's the last play due to time). My team or the team I'm rooting for, that always makes me a bit nervous when a player does that. Same thing with when a receiver catches a ball and is trying to do all these jukes while you see a defender coming up from behind them, the chances of a fumble from that are pretty high. Make a move or 2 and just go down if the defender doesn't bite, it'll save fumbles and injuries. It's not victim shaming at all as that could happen on a completely legal hit too. It's not like you shouldn't dive because a defender could illegally jump on your back and break it or something that can only happen on an illegal hit. You also shouldn't depend on a call to win you the game unless it's super obvious like that infamous no-call PI against the Saints a couple years back. How many diving plays like that (both players diving) have you seen an unnecessary roughness called on? I'm pretty sure I've never seen it.

If talent acquisition was simple, every team would be amazingly good. It's not simple, that's why you have teams that are bad for quite awhile because they're run poorly.

 

[Xprimentyl]

It's about not putting yourself in that position in the first place. If I was a coach I would have a team rule about extending the ball as well (especially prior to 3rd down or it's the last play due to time). My team or the team I'm rooting for, that always makes me a bit nervous when a player does that. Same thing with when a receiver catches a ball and is trying to do all these jukes while you see a defender coming up from behind them, the chances of a fumble from that are pretty high. Make a move or 2 and just go down if the defender doesn't bite, it'll save fumbles and injuries. It's not victim shaming at all as that could happen on a completely legal hit too. It's not like you shouldn't dive because a defender could illegally jump on your back and break it or something that can only happen on an illegal hit. You also shouldn't depend on a call to win you the game unless it's super obvious like that infamous no-call PI against the Saints a couple years back. How many diving plays like that (both players diving) have you seen an unnecessary roughness called on? I'm pretty sure I've never seen it.

If talent acquisition was simple, every team would be amazingly good. It's not simple, that's why you have teams that are bad for quite awhile because they're run poorly.

We'll agree to feel differently; literally anything could have happened during/after that dive; I just would have preferred it have been a clean hit to make that determination, particularly in a playoff game when, by far and away, an underdog is fighting for their lives. Talent acquisition isn't easy for sure, but when an entitled reigning Super Bowl champ flexes their muscles and goes out and gets the likes of Leveon Bell after a single loss, I'm going to defer to teams who put in the work to get better versus those that spend just to be better.

TL;DR, I'm not a Chiefs fan; handing them any call in their favor just further solidifies that resolve that they've yet to earn the dynasty they think they're building.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

We'll agree to feel differently; literally anything could have happened during/after that dive; I just would have preferred it have been a clean hit to make that determination, particularly in a playoff game when, by far and away, an underdog is fighting for their lives. Talent acquisition isn't easy for sure, but when an entitled reigning Super Bowl champ flexes their muscles and goes out and gets the likes of Leveon Bell after a single loss, I'm going to defer to teams who put in the work to get better versus those that spend just to be better.

TL;DR, I'm not a Chiefs fan; handing them any call in their favor just further solidifies that resolve that they've yet to earn the dynasty they think they're building.

Nobody really wanted Bell though. It's kinda like what the Patriots do, they give players a 2nd or 3rd chance that most teams don't want because it's low risk (money-wise) with high potential. Sometimes it works out like with Randy Moss, sometimes it doesn't like Antonio Brown when the Pats got rid of him. Most of the Patriots players are either well-drafted (good scouting) players or well-coached player or a combination of both, Brady was a 6th round pick as everyone knows now. Running backs are no longer valued commodities unless they're like Hall of Famer type talent because their playing span isn't too long. Plus, if you have good offense line play, you can really stick anyone back there and have a great running attack like Broncos in Elway's day. So many teams would get former Broncos RBs but they didn't do nearly as good as they did in Denver.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Gutting weekend of football. Aaron Rodgers and the Packers fall to Tom Brady and the Buccaneers. Patrick Mahomes and his Chiefs bring down the up-and-coming Josh Allen and the Bills. That said, while not a single team I like is in the big game here in a couple of weeks… this might be one of the best Super Bowls in a LONG time. Truly the GOAT versus the next GOAT. Predictions? I have no fucking idea. Literally anything could happen. I could see a one-sided blowout. I could see a high-scoring shootout. I could see a low-scoring defensive game. I may not be happy about it, but I’m for DAMN sure getting my popcorn ready...

 

[Xprimentyl]

So yesterday on Good Morning Football, Nate Burleson called the Brady versus Mahomes match-up "The G.O.A.T. versus The Kid"... y'know, cuz baby goats are called "kids?" Not sure if he coined it or stole it, but it's damned clever; I think it's up there with the 2012 season's "Harbowl" when brothers Jim and John Harbaugh coached against each other with the 49ers and Ravens respectively.

 

[Jarrito3002]

So the fix was in the get Brady back in the Superbowl and add another another accolade to this resume. Well this makes this Superbowl reallly easy to root for. I already love the Chiefs so this is a eventually I can cosign too and I pray Mahommes and company gets payback for that AFC title a couple of years ago.

Man the narratives around this write themselves.