Miami Game Goat (Mayo and who Else?)

[j44thor]

Silver lining
They didn't lose anyone to a season ending injury and are 1 step closer to #1 pick.
This would have been an entirely meaningless win in the grand scheme of things. If anything you want to lose every Brissett start in hopes of ending the season with a couple Maye lead wins and not costing yourself precious draft position.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

That spending spree wasn’t really that bad. Judon and Henry worked out. Agoholor was about as expected, got paid low end 2 money and produced #3 results but on short years not really an issue. Jonnu Smith was a disaster of course but hardly a roster busting problem

Jones failing, the brain drain in the front office and coaching staff and the entire core getting old/expensive/injured within 2-3 years was the real killer.

No GM could have drafted well enough to make up for the loss and degradation of talent the Pats had after the 2018 Super Bowl.

Moving on from Thuney and trading Mason in order to spend on skill positions probably wasn’t the way to go.

 

[ekim colorwaterpit]

He didn’t get two feet in. He got one and a half. The second foot was clearly half in and half out. If the heel didn’t hit the ground as part of the catch, it would have been a TD.

Literally always been the rule. “Toe tap” means the toe hits as part of the catch but the rest of the foot does not hit the ground as part of the catching process.

But why does the toe count in that situation and not this sutuation?

 

[Garshaparra]

He still got Uche, Jennings, Gonzalez, Barmore, Keion White, Onwenu, Stevenson and Dugger which isn’t a terrible haul. Sow, Baringer, and some others have some promise.

10 hits, 2 on offense (maybe, depending on Sow). Premium picks were spent on D, which is why they're not losing 40-0. And further FA work on offense was non-existent beyond Henry. Gibson is a good get for this season, and kept them in the game as the lightning back, but that's not BB.

Edit: I forgot Bourne as a FA success, but with no line, they could have gotten Ridley and Hopkins and they'd just be wasted cash. It's all about the line, which BB forgot.

 

[johnmd20]

Yes that's the rule and obviously the refs got it right but it is a stupid rule. See Insta's explanation above

That's not correct, tho.

If that same play happens on the sideline, (toe hits inbounds and then the heel OB) the pass would be incomplete. The end zone has nothing to do with it.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Yeah, this. They have one of the worst rosters in football and don’t seem to be able to improve it either via the draft or FA.

Yeah- they were lousy last year, had tons of cap space and top picks- and are getting minimal contributions from guys they signed and drafted. What’s going on? At least they resigned so many holdovers to maintain the culture.

 

[j-man]

I bet there are like 31 fanbases that make that expensive deal every time.

Jets, Giants, Indy, Jacksonville, Raiders, Chargers, Miami, Denver, Commanders, Arizona, New Orleans, and Atlanta have all been piss poor for a while. Well over 3-4 years. And that's off the top of my head.

denver been bad for 7 years tryed everything kraft wouild had done

 

[ekim colorwaterpit]

That's not correct, tho.

If that same play happens on the sideline, (toe hits inbounds and then the heel OB) the pass would be incomplete. The end zone has nothing to do with it.

Correct endzone doesn't matter, but I don't understand why the toe is good enough going forward, but not backward.

 

[radsoxfan]

Brissett is obviously totally washed. This is tough to watch.

And of course Brissett could have made a better throw on the almost TD, but almost any NFL WR catches that pass with both feet very easily in bounds.

Polk reached backwards with his right leg for some unknown reason, entirely clueless about where he was on the field. Anyone else just lets both legs fall and he's in bounds by a few feet.

1a. Brissett
1b. Mayo
2. O-line
3. Polk
4. SoSH Game Threaders shocked by the toe tap vs foot landing half OOB rule. Not our finest hour.

 

[steveluck7]

Correct endzone doesn't matter, but I don't understand why the toe is good enough going forward, but not backward.

If a player is moving forward and gets his heel down in bounds but his toe out, it’s no catch.

If you put your whole foot down as a part of the catch and any part is OOB, it’s no catch.

Edit: if Polk would have somehow lifted his foot after the toe hit in bounds then it would have been a catch since it would have been a “toe tap”

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Brissett is obviously totally washed. This is tough to watch.

And of course Brissett could have made a better throw on the almost TD, but almost any NFL WR catches that pass with both feet very easily in bounds.

Polk reached backwards with his right leg for some unknown reason, entirely clueless about where he was on the field. Anyone else just lets both legs fall and he's in bounds by a few feet.

1a. Brissett
1b. Mayo
2. O-line
3. Polk
4. SoSH Game Threaders shocked by the toe tap vs foot landing half OOB rule. Not our finest hour.

Man, I don’t agree that that Polk’s target on the back line was routine. Would’ve been a great, if not top plays of the year worthy, had he got the second foot down.

 

[moondog80]

Correct endzone doesn't matter, but I don't understand why the toe is good enough going forward, but not backward.

The toe counts when it’s the only part of the foot to hit the ground?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

that’s not the rule

If the entire bottom of the foot hits the ground during the catching process, the entire foot has to be in bounds.

it’s been that way for 100 years just about. Why are people so confused about this? The entire foot has to be in bounds, it’s NFL rules 101

You are moving the goalposts here. In my post I said the rule was stupid, not that the ref called it wrong.

A receiver should either need to get the whole foot down in bounds or not. “In some circumstances just getting a toe or heel down counts as one foot in bounds, in other circumstances it doesn’t” is fucking stupid.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

Brissett is obviously totally washed. This is tough to watch.

And of course Brissett could have made a better throw on the almost TD, but almost any NFL WR catches that pass with both feet very easily in bounds.

Polk reached backwards with his right leg for some unknown reason, entirely clueless about where he was on the field. Anyone else just lets both legs fall and he's in bounds by a few feet.

1a. Brissett
1b. Mayo
2. O-line
3. Polk
4. SoSH Game Threaders shocked by the toe tap vs foot landing half OOB rule. Not our finest hour.

Brissett isn’t really washed per se. This is just who he is.

not sure why people are surprised by a bad QB being bad. He’s better than pure trash and he doesn’t turn the ball over a ton. But he’s not a good QB and never has been.

He’s a great backup. In a league where there’s maybe 20 average or good+ QB’s, he’s probably a very very low end starter just based on the number of jobs. But he isn’t good.

 

[ekim colorwaterpit]

If a player is moving forward and gets his heel down in bounds but his toe out, it’s no catch.

If you put your whole foot down as a part of the catch and any part is OOB, it’s no catch.

I get that is the rule, and I don't care enough to keep arguing, but I just don't understand why that is the rule. If technically the rule is that 2 toes count (see dragging your feet out of bounds) why do 2 toes get negated if the heel hits going backwards? I mean at some point even in the first example the heel hits even if it's when he starts walking back to the field.

 

[johnmd20]

You are moving the goalposts here. In my post I said the rule was stupid, not that the ref called it wrong.

A receiver should either need to get the whole foot down in bounds or not. “In some circumstances just getting a toe or heel down counts as one foot in bounds, in other circumstances it doesn’t” is fucking stupid.

A toe tap is just a toe. That is probably why it's called a toe tap but I'm not a professor of nomenclature. None of the foot comes down other than the toe, so if the toe is in bounds, it's in bounds.

How is this complex?

 

[NextBigThing8184]

The toe counts when it’s the only part of the foot to hit the ground?

if it’s a toe tap, yes.

 

[BaseballJones]

The bill came due for 20 years of excellence and it is extremely expensive.

Not that I love this but I’m happy to pay this price for those 20 years.

 

[steveluck7]

I get that is the rule, and I don't care enough to keep arguing, but I just don't understand why that is the rule. If technically the rule is that 2 toes count (see dragging your feet out of bounds) why do 2 toes get negated if the heel hits going backwards? I mean at some point even in the first example the heel hits even if it's when he starts walking back to the field.

That’s why they use the qualifiers “as a part of the catch.” They also mention a delay between the toe hitting in bounds and the heel landing out.
I can’t really answer why other than to say “because thats the rule they came up with”
Why is a runner down when his knee hits? Why can a DB make contact with a receiver downfield when the QB is out of the pocket? Thems the rules

 

[Dave Stapleton]

I get that is the rule, and I don't care enough to keep arguing, but I just don't understand why that is the rule. If technically the rule is that 2 toes count (see dragging your feet out of bounds) why do 2 toes get negated if the heel hits going backwards? I mean at some point even in the first example the heel hits even if it's when he starts walking back to the field.

Guys … it’s physics. How many times do you see a player on a side line with their heal facing the line. If somehow a player was standing and at that direction same applies as what happened with Polk.

I’m having a hard time understanding why it’s hard for folks to process.

 

[Ed Hillel]

A toe tap is just a toe. That is probably why it's called a toe tap but I'm not a professor of nomenclature. None of the foot comes down other than the toe, so if the toe is in bounds, it's in bounds.

How is this complex?

I’m with you on toe tap, but the toe drag makes no sense to me. Either the foot should have to come up or it shouldn’t.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

I’m with you on toe tap, but the toe drag makes no sense to me. Either the foot should have to come up or it shouldn’t.

Doesnt “toe drag” imply the foot is in contact with the ground as possession of the ball is secured? It’s no different than having the whole foot planted.

 

[steveluck7]

Doesnt “toe drag” imply the foot is in contact with the ground as possession of the ball is secured? It’s no different than having the whole foot planted.

That would also probably satisfy the “delay between toe and heel landing” portion of the rule

 

[johnmd20]

I’m with you on toe tap, but the toe drag makes no sense to me. Either the foot should have to come up or it shouldn’t.

But if you're toe dragging, you can't go OB until you drag both toes. If you drag both toes while securing the ball, you can then step out of bounds.(or have your toe drag OB) You've completed the catch.

Polk didn't complete the catch because one of his feet was OB. If he tapped the toe on his 2nd foot and then lifted his leg off the ground, he could have stepped out of bounds with his entire foot. He didn't do that. He came down in the end zone with his foot over the line.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I’m having a hard time understanding why it’s hard for folks to process.

Some rules are dumb, including this one. I’m not having a problem “processing” the rule, I’m saying it is idiotic. Either getting a part of the foot down in bounds should always be enough or it should never be enough.

 

[ShaneTrot]

You are moving the goalposts here. In my post I said the rule was stupid, not that the ref called it wrong.

A receiver should either need to get the whole foot down in bounds or not. “In some circumstances just getting a toe or heel down counts as one foot in bounds, in other circumstances it doesn’t” is fucking stupid.

My favorite bizarre rule has always been the ground cannot cause a fumble. My opinion is if you lose possession you lost possession.

 

[johnmd20]

Some rules are dumb, including this one. I’m not having a problem “processing” the rule, I’m saying it is idiotic. Either getting a part of the foot down in bounds should always be enough or it should never be enough.

But you're wrong. The rules are actually clear, consistent, and not dumb on this.

Toe taps are part of the foot. Two feet is in bounds. If you tap two toes in bounds while no other part of the foot is out of bounds, it's a catch. Two feet in. TD.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

You are moving the goalposts here. In my post I said the rule was stupid, not that the ref called it wrong.

A receiver should either need to get the whole foot down in bounds or not. “In some circumstances just getting a toe or heel down counts as one foot in bounds, in other circumstances it doesn’t” is fucking stupid.

That would eliminate so many fantastic, incredible, and athletic feats of receiving excellence that the only reason to make this change would be to make the game worse. Sideline toe taps rule. Your proposed change would suck.

 

[radsoxfan]

Man, I don’t agree that that Polk’s target on the back line was routine. Would’ve been a great, if not top plays of the year worthy, had he got the second foot down.

No way top play worthy lol. If he deadlegs that he's WAY in bounds. Thats a pretty routine move for an NFL WR on a pass towards the sideline or the back of the endzone.

The ball was high but an easy enough catch, he just instinctively threw his right leg back as if he was going to try to land on his feet or something.

 

[johnmd20]

My favorite bizarre rule has always been the ground cannot cause a fumble. My opinion is if you lose possession you lost possession.

Ground can cause a fumble if you're untouched. If you're touched and you go down, you're actually down before the fumble can occur, I believe is the spirit of that rule. So the ground doesn't matter, the play is dead.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Realistically, BB the GM should be #1 in these threads every week, he royally fucked up this roster over the preceding five seasons.

Yes

 

[steveluck7]

BTW, I’m surprised with all of the rule changes seeming to promote more offense that they haven’t considered adopting the college “1foot in bounds” catch rule

 

[Eddie Jurak]

But if you're toe dragging, you can't go OB until you drag both toes. If you drag both toes while securing the ball, you can then step out of bounds.(or have your toe drag OB) You've completed the catch.

Polk didn't complete the catch because one of his feet was OB. If he tapped the toe on his 2nd foot and then lifted his leg off the ground, he could have stepped out of bounds with his entire foot. He didn't do that. He came down in the end zone with his foot over the line.

These are 2 different positions:

1. Polk’s catch was good because he got the toe down before his heel came down out of bounds.

2. Polk’s catch was not good because the rules required a player in that situation to get the whole foot down in bounds and he very obviously didn’t. But that rule is fucking stupid.

#1 is an incorrect statement.

#2 is a matter of opinion.

Explaining what the rule is and why Polk’s catch was correctly called out of bounds is a good response to #1 and a worthless response to #2.

 

[ekim colorwaterpit]

Some rules are dumb, including this one. I’m not having a problem “processing” the rule, I’m saying it is idiotic. Either getting a part of the foot down in bounds should always be enough or it should never be enough.

This is where I'm at. I'm not having trouble processing or understanding what others are saying. I just don't like it and not only in this instance. I've never liked it. I just don't like that the toe toe counts in one circumstance, but it's the toe and... in another circumstance.

 

[moondog80]

But you're wrong. The rules are actually clear, consistent, and not dumb on this.

Toe taps are part of the foot. Two feet is in bounds. If you tap two toes in bounds while no other part of the foot is out of bounds, it's a catch. Two feet in. TD.

Right. Every part of your foot that touches the ground has to be in bounds. But if some of your foot doesn’t touch the ground at all, that’s OK so long as the part the does is in bonds. That seems perfectly logical.

 

[BaseballJones]

That's not correct, tho.

If that same play happens on the sideline, (toe hits inbounds and then the heel OB) the pass would be incomplete. The end zone has nothing to do with it.

What happens if the toe taps and then the receiver picks up the foot and steps out of bounds with it? It’s complete, right?

Edit: oh that literally just got answered as I was typing this.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

BFD if Polk had scored a TD. Like we'd be pumping our fists in the air? A win over the hapless Dolphins wouldn't make this team suck any less.

 

[moondog80]

What happens if the toe taps and then the receiver picks up the foot and steps out of bounds with it? It’s complete, right?

I think so, yes

 

[deythur]

Mayo
AVP
Wolfe
The toe tap conversation

 

[BaseballJones]

Wolf
OL
Brissett

Realistically, BB the GM should be #1 in these threads every week, he royally fucked up this roster over the preceding five seasons.

This roster with a healthy Tom Brady is 3-2 minimum and is doing just fine.

 

[johnmd20]

These are 2 different positions:

1. Polk’s catch was good because he got the toe down before his heel came down out of bounds.

2. Polk’s catch was not good because the rules required a player in that situation to get the whole foot down in bounds and he very obviously didn’t. But that rule is fucking stupid.

#1 is an incorrect statement.

#2 is a matter of opinion.

Explaining what the rule is and why Polk’s catch was correctly called out of bounds is a good response to #1 and a worthless response to #2.

You don't need to get the whole fucking foot down. A toe can suffice. Or a heel. Any part of the foot, in fact.

But if you put your whole foot down, IT HAS TO BE IN BOUNDS.

This is not opinion.

 

[jercra]

No way top play worthy lol. If he deadlegs that he's WAY in bounds. Thats a pretty routine move for an NFL WR on a pass towards the sideline or the back of the endzone.

The ball was high but an easy enough catch, he just instinctively threw his right leg back as if he was going to try to land on his feet or something.

If he did this and both heels hit the ground but not the bottom of his feet would that have counted? In other words, does a heel cap count the same as a toe tap?

NM: Answered while typing

 

[Eddie Jurak]

You don't need to get the whole fucking foot down. A toe can suffice. Or a heel. Any part of the foot, in fact.

But if you put your whole foot down, IT HAS TO BE IN BOUNDS.

This is not opinion.

Jesus fucking Christ.

What the rule is is clear and I am not arguing about it.

Whether the rule is a good sensible rule and not an idiotic monstrosity is a separate question - and completely a matter of opinion.

 

[Reggie's Racquet]

This team has a lot of holes to fill.
Getting the best draft pick possible and trading down to pick up those extra early round picks is the best plan.
Losing while painful is unfortunately the best way forward.

 

[rodderick]

I found out today I hate having Jacoby Brissett as the QB for a rebuilding team with zero aspirations. They should have signed Jameis Winston as a bridge QB, a guy who'll give the young receivers a chance in order to develop them and make them a more entertaining on field product. I honestly couldn't give half a shit about interceptions for a team built like this one.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Right. Every part of your foot that touches the ground has to be in bounds. But if some of your foot doesn’t touch the ground at all, that’s OK so long as the part the does is in bonds. That seems perfectly logical.

There is a logic to it in the sense that it isn't arbitrary. The line has to be drawn somewhere and that is a reasonable drawing of the line. (Whereas, say, "receivers with a "K" in their name need to get the whole foot down in bounds but receivers who do not have a "K" in their name can just get a part of a foot down" would not be a reasonable drawing of the line.)

But "getting any part of the foot down in bounds before any part of the body - including the rest of the foot - touches out of bounds" would also be a logical, reasonable drawing of the line.

Between the two options, the latter would be preferable.

 

[Rico Guapo]

This roster with a healthy Tom Brady is 3-2 minimum and is doing just fine.

What? They just lost at home to a beat up dolphins team on their 3rd string QB because the Patriots OL is historically bad, they have no real threats on offense, and the defense has taken too many injuries to overcome how frequently the offense puts them on the field.

This team isn't sniffing 3-2 even with prime Brady because the majority of the roster is awful.

 

[NextBigThing8184]

This is where I'm at. I'm not having trouble processing or understanding what others are saying. I just don't like it and not only in this instance. I've never liked it. I just don't like that the toe toe counts in one circumstance, but it's the toe and... in another circumstance.

Well you’re looking at it the wrong way. It has nothing to do with the toe.

Whatever part of the foot hits the ground during the process of the catch has to be 100% in bounds. That’s as simple as it gets.

 

[johnmd20]

This roster with a healthy Tom Brady is 3-2 minimum and is doing just fine.

Which Tom Brady, 47 year old Tom Brady or prime Tom Brady?

Because, yes, prime Tom Brady would have any team near 500. But he is also the best QB in NFL history.

 

[SamCassellsStones]

Question: Why does it count as a catch if you touch down toes and drag out of bounds? Doesn’t the heel (/rest of foot) come down out of bounds in that scenario?