Between this and Mallett for JJ Watt and Andre Johnson the pats are all setdbn said:
Simple: trade Blount for Revis.
Between this and Mallett for JJ Watt and Andre Johnson the pats are all setdbn said:
Simple: trade Blount for Revis.
I'm with you on that. Flip them both and its even better.RedOctober3829 said:2 similar plays made a huge impact on the game: the OPI called on Hooman that took the possibility of 3 points off the board and the non-OPI that took Talib off the field. Even if one of those plays goes in the Patriots' favor, it's a different game.
It's fairly obvious that your most valuable defensive player cannot stay on the field in the most important game of the year, two years in a row...he pulled up lame last year and this year goes out on a hit by Welker, a hit that caused no damage to the knee.Stitch01 said:
Can you expand on this? I feel like the roster the Pats had this year was set up about as well as possible to not rely solely on Talib with Dennard/Ryan/Arrington rounding out the secondary. Its sort of hard to have a backup All-Pro corner.
JokersWildJIMED said:It's fairly obvious that your most valuable defensive player cannot stay on the field in the most important game of the year, two years in a row...he pulled up lame last year and this year goes out on a hit by Welker, a hit that caused no damage to the knee.
OK, I still don't really understand your point though. How do they rely less on Talib? Are you just saying you want to let him go as a free agent?JokersWildJIMED said:It's fairly obvious that your most valuable defensive player cannot stay on the field in the most important game of the year, two years in a row...he pulled up lame last year and this year goes out on a hit by Welker, a hit that caused no damage to the knee.
What I'm saying is that I don't think there's ever been supplementary discipline for vanilla offensive pass interference. There needs to be some sort of intent to injure or recklessness. Given that backdrop, I think that's a pretty fair reading of what Belichick said.Joshv02 said:League discipline is allowed for unnecessary roughness or unsportsmanlike conduct (cba Art 46(1)(b)). Intent to injure may be proof of either of those, but it is not necessary for either of those. Setting an illegal pick without the intent to do anything other than set the illegal pick (i.e., not get open) may be subject to discipline (I have no idea). Either way, I don't think think it means that Belichick said "Welker tried to hurt him," but rather means "Welker's play was either unnecessarily rough or unsportsmanlike." (Technically, I think it likely would violate the unnecessary roughness rule, 12.8(e): "unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who. (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead." But I have no idea if that is how it is typically read.)
He's the same guy who said the Gronk play against the panthers was a legal play while watching video which showed contrary to what he was describing right?mpx42 said:
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet28s
NFL head of refs Dean Blandino on the Welker/Talib play: “Under the current rules, this is a legal play."
I think we'll need a new position in the NFL: DB Taker-Outter-Guy.NortheasternPJ said:How is hitting a defender covering a receiver getting hit while the ball is in the air legal?
NortheasternPJ said:How is hitting a defender covering a receiver getting hit while the ball is in the air legal?
scottyno said:He's the same guy who said the Gronk play against the panthers was a legal play while watching video which showed contrary to what he was describing right?
Steam Shovel Mulligan should work for next year on the Patsifmanis5 said:I think we'll need a new position in the NFL: DB Taker-Outter-Guy.
PedroKsBambino said:It's interesting to me that both Pereira and Blandino said the contact was 'about when the ball touched the receiver' rather than 'after' or 'at the same time'. Does the rule itself say 'about' or is it 'same time' or 'after' as I'd imagine? I get why they'd choose to say 'close enough' and not make the issue a bigger one, just curious.
Pereira saying it was close enough has some weight with me, though I do not agree with him on this play. Blandino has earned a presumption that he's managing the media not the merits of the call, imo.
I don't know. I don't think the head of officiating should call something a "legal play" because it was close enough. If he wants to say it was a very close call or something to that degree then fine. Back your official. But to say it was legal means an OPI would be the wrong call. So if a ref has the angle and calls a close play as OPI, he's wrong? Are they telling refs not to call those? I wouldn't be surprised if they were and can understand why some DBs are upset.Sausage in Section 17 said:Basically what he is saying is that the timing of the ball and the hit is within their acceptable margins of "simultaneous", which at NFL speed is a range and not a fixed point.
Perhaps catchability factors in here, since the ball was in the air? Logically, "pass interference" doesn't seem like the right penalty - Welker didn't interfere with Talib's ability to make a play on the pass.BigJimEd said:I don't know. I don't think the head of officiating should call something a "legal play" because it was close enough. If he wants to say it was a very close call or something to that degree then fine. Back your official. But to say it was legal means an OPI would be the wrong call. So if a ref has the angle and calls a close play as OPI, he's wrong? Are they telling refs not to call those? I wouldn't be surprised if they were and can understand why some DBs are upset.
Doesn't this speak to Belichick's idea of letting everything be challengeable? Whether contact was incidental or interference in judgement and perhaps can't be overturned, but something like whether contact happened before or after the ball arrived is objective.Sausage in Section 17 said:It's never been tougher for officials. The advent of replay as part of the rules raised the bar for accuracy. We've all gotten used to the idea that we can take a second look, and that a bad call can get overturned, but it hasn't ever and shouldn't apply to penalties. There are probably 5 plays a game where depending on the timing of the balls arrival, PI could get called in one direction or another. It has and always will be a judgment call. Considering the refs get to watch it once at full speed,it's just not fair to apply replay level scrutiny to every area of the game.
What would be interesting to know is if there is a grade relating to the call for the refs. I can accept the head officials comments if he's saying its too close to call at that speed, but I'd also like to think that since the stills confirm early contact, the room for improvement would be noted in some way.
This. This is what I mean. I think the head of officials should have a more precise definition and shouldn't be calling something that on replay clearly shows contact before the ball as "legal". Too close to call? maybe. But to say it is a "legal play" under the current rules seems wrong and unnecessary, at least to me. If a flag was thrown for OPI, would he say that was the wrong call? Because that is in essence what he is saying.Sausage in Section 17 said:I can accept the head officials comments if he's saying its too close to call at that speed, but I'd also like to think that since the stills confirm early contact, the room for improvement would be noted in some way.
Bedard's article didn't mention catchability as being a criterion for determining whether illegal contact had occurred. I agree that if Talib doesn't get hurt, the only thing that happens is that Belichick or one of the assistants barks at the officials for a few seconds and everyone moves on.Super Nomario said:Perhaps catchability factors in here, since the ball was in the air? Logically, "pass interference" doesn't seem like the right penalty - Welker didn't interfere with Talib's ability to make a play on the pass.
I don't think we're talking about this play if Talib didn't get hurt.
I know I've said this before, but challenging non-calls like the Welker/Talib play can open a whole big can of worms. Between the myriad of collisions occurring on every play, there's probably at least one infraction going on for every down. At some point, you do have to let the humans call the game as they see it, and live with the resulting imperfections.Doesn't this speak to Belichick's idea of letting everything be challengeable? Whether contact was incidental or interference in judgement and perhaps can't be overturned, but something like whether contact happened before or after the ball arrived is objective.
Super Nomario said:Perhaps catchability factors in here, since the ball was in the air? Logically, "pass interference" doesn't seem like the right penalty - Welker didn't interfere with Talib's ability to make a play on the pass.
I don't think we're talking about this play if Talib didn't get hurt.
Agreed, I dont buy that it was a technically legal play. In real time the hit was super close to when the ball was caught, but it was pretty conclusively early in slow motion and with the stills.PedroKsBambino said:It's interesting to me that both Pereira and Blandino said the contact was 'about when the ball touched the receiver' rather than 'after' or 'at the same time'. Does the rule itself say 'about' or is it 'same time' or 'after' as I'd imagine? I get why they'd choose to say 'close enough' and not make the issue a bigger one, just curious.
Pereira saying it was close enough has some weight with me, though I do not agree with him on this play. Blandino has earned a presumption that he's managing the media not the merits of the call, imo.
The rulebook lists under "permissable acts by both teams while the ball is in the air":lexrageorge said:Bedard's article didn't mention catchability as being a criterion for determining whether illegal contact had occurred. I agree that if Talib doesn't get hurt, the only thing that happens is that Belichick or one of the assistants barks at the officials for a few seconds and everyone moves on.
Sure, but OPI isn't a safety rule. If Welker hits Talib a split-second later, it obviously isn't pass interference, but it very likely would have produced the same result. Talib didn't get hurt because Welker hit him before Thomas touched the ball; he got hurt because Welker hit him when he wasn't looking, which is legal in many contexts throughout football.Reverend said:Ah, but he did get hurt, yeah? So that raises the issue of whether or not the injury was a function of an infraction. A lot of the rules, as you obviously know, are in place to some degree because football would be too dangerous without them. Hell, it's too dangerous with them.
I don't think there's much unique in the design of the pick, to be honest. Thomas hides Welker because they're running as close to each other's paths as possible so Talib can't split them. Welker's size relative to Thomas is probably a factor here, too.Reverend said:The genius of this play design is not only is there a pick, but the receiver hides the guy who is going to make the pick. Of course, a normal pick is guys interfering with each other in space; we might want to consider a different term when the guy setting the pick frickin' trucks the defender--this is a bit more than leaning into the pick in basketball.
In a very real sense, while the intent is to free a receiver to catch a ball so I wouldn't say there is intent to hurt the defender, that goal is accomplished by making it so that the pass defender doesn't see a hit coming because the player setting the pick is concealed, which is inherently dangerous.
"It was really uncalled for," Thurmond told reporters Wednesday. "The receiver ran right into the guy. I don't know the extent of the injury Talib had, but I thought we were supposed to protect football players in this league now. I guess not. I guess that only goes one way."
Right. Basically, if the pass is not yet thrown, offensive players cannot block more than 1 yard past the los; if the pass is thrown but not yet caught, offensive players (more than one yard past the los) in the vicinity of the ball cannot block, but those not in the vicinity of the ball are not committing OPI if they do block.Super Nomario said:
So it looks like "catchability" isn't really a factor for OPI, but "in the vicinity" is. I'm not sure exactly how that applies to the Talib case. In the spirit of the rule, I think it's pretty difficult to argue that Welker's block interfered with Talib's ability to play the pass.
RoyHobbs said:Oh, now this is gonna get fun.
Seahawks CB Walter Thurmond's comments on Wes Welker's hit on Aqib Talib
Saints Rest said:I'm still unclear how this is different than the play that tore up Rodney Harrison's knee years ago.
I also don't know how it is different from hitting a defenseless WR.
My guess is that the Competition Committee will look at this in the offseason.
Denver runs a pick play on almost every play. I think at this point they just figure it's like holding... It only gets called so many times.86spike said:
You guys know that the Patriots use the same pick/rub plays as much as Denver, right?
Why on earth would you want them limited?
The play in question just another rub play that went badly because Talib and Welker played chicken and collided. the play is designed to make Talib swerve high and lose a step on Thomas, who he is pursuing. Talib didn't bite, Welker didn't flinch, and they collided.
I would have had no complaint if it was flagged as OPI. It wasn't flagged (most likely because in real time/full speed the refs watching Thomas and Welker couldn't tell if the ball got there before the collision). They collided and Talib got banged up. Welker could have just as easily been the guy getting banged up.
But you guys want to cut your noses off to spite your face by making it harder to run pick/rub plays? Those plays are helping your offense (and others) beat the modern man coverage played by the best NFL defenses.
Strictly speaking pretty much every play where receivers cross is a pick play on some level.jsinger121 said:I'd be in favor of taking pick plays out of the game. The defense is already handicapped enough the 5 yard holding call and PI.
I'd rather just let defenders be allowed to make contact for ten yards, but I'm in favor of most rules that helps the defense without hurting player safety given the myriad of recent rule changes that have helped the offense.86spike said:You guys know that the Patriots use the same pick/rub plays as much as Denver, right?
Why on earth would you want them limited?
The play in question just another rub play that went badly because Talib and Welker played chicken and collided. the play is designed to make Talib swerve high and lose a step on Thomas, who he is pursuing. Talib didn't bite, Welker didn't flinch, and they collided.
I would have had no complaint if it was flagged as OPI. It wasn't flagged (most likely because in real time/full speed the refs watching Thomas and Welker couldn't tell if the ball got there before the collision). They collided and Talib got banged up. Welker could have just as easily been the guy getting banged up.
But you guys want to cut your noses off to spite your face by making it harder to run pick/rub plays? Those plays are helping your offense (and others) beat the modern man coverage played by the best NFL defenses.
Trying to wake up from another concussion?86spike said:This is Welker's reaction to this thread:
86spike said:
You guys know that the Patriots use the same pick/rub plays as much as Denver, right?
Why on earth would you want them limited?
The play in question just another rub play that went badly because Talib and Welker played chicken and collided. the play is designed to make Talib swerve high and lose a step on Thomas, who he is pursuing. Talib didn't bite, Welker didn't flinch, and they collided.
I would have had no complaint if it was flagged as OPI. It wasn't flagged (most likely because in real time/full speed the refs watching Thomas and Welker couldn't tell if the ball got there before the collision). They collided and Talib got banged up. Welker could have just as easily been the guy getting banged up.
But you guys want to cut your noses off to spite your face by making it harder to run pick/rub plays? Those plays are helping your offense (and others) beat the modern man coverage played by the best NFL defenses.
86spike said:
You guys know that the Patriots use the same pick/rub plays as much as Denver, right?
Why on earth would you want them limited?
The play in question just another rub play that went badly because Talib and Welker played chicken and collided. the play is designed to make Talib swerve high and lose a step on Thomas, who he is pursuing. Talib didn't bite, Welker didn't flinch, and they collided.
I would have had no complaint if it was flagged as OPI. It wasn't flagged (most likely because in real time/full speed the refs watching Thomas and Welker couldn't tell if the ball got there before the collision). They collided and Talib got banged up. Welker could have just as easily been the guy getting banged up.
But you guys want to cut your noses off to spite your face by making it harder to run pick/rub plays? Those plays are helping your offense (and others) beat the modern man coverage played by the best NFL defenses.
PedroKsBambino said:
I agree the Pats use plenty of pick plays and am not of the view the league should get rid of them. But to call that a collision rather than a targeted hit by Welker is silly; there is clear intent there, and a more credible league officiating system would have acknowledged that.
It's the game---lots of picks get run, sometimes guys get targeted and blown up. But you gotta acknowledge that one was intentional and more aggressive than any in memory, too.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
Offenses don't need anymore rules in their favor. They have enough.
https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/426807925215363072NFL tells the Herald: No fine for Wes Welker for to his block on Aqib Talib in the AFC Championship.
86spike said:
I do not acknowledge that. i agree with Teddy Brushi (as quoted earlier in this thread):
Bruschi: I know how it looked, David, but I disagree with the assessment. This type of collision happens every week in the NFL. If you look closely, this type of pick-route mentality happens weekly within the New England Patriot offense. It's a strategic way to beat man to man coverage. When these techniques are utilized closer to the line of scrimmage, they happen at a lower rate of speed. But when they happen down the field, 10-15 yards from the line of scrimmage, the rate of speed increases. Welker had a clear goal on that play -- to make Aqib Talib go over the top so he could free up Demaryius Thomas. Aqib Talib made a decision to attempt to fight to stay under that pick. So what you have there are 2 players, going at a high rate of speed because they were 10-plus yards from the line of scrimmage, simultaneously deciding to take the same route. That's where the collision occurred. Welker's intent was to pick Aqib Talib, but it wasn't to injure.
PedroKsBambino said:
You either read my post or the Bruschi post incorrectly---Bruschi (like I) saw an intent from Welker to hit Talib on the play. Neither of us saw an intent to injure. Bruschi is a little confusing in the middle there, but he says plain as day ultimately that the intent was to pick Talib. As Bruschi notes, it is common for players to collide but as he also notes, it happening where it did made it much more violent than most.
Other players have been quoted as saying the same thing I did; you don't have to agree with it, obviously.
86spike said:
Welker and Talib played chicken. Neither one flinched. They collided. It sucks that Talib got hurt.
86spike said:
I guess I read your post incorrectly then. I thought you were saying Welker was making a move solely to cause a collision.
IMO, the optimal result of that play, when run correctly, is no collision because one of the two flinch and change course. Welker's goal is not to collide and neither is Talib's.
Stallworth said the play between Aqib Talib and Wes Welker was a “typical play” that he’s seen “a million times.”
“What Talib was trying to do, and I guarantee if you ask him this, this is what he’ll tell you, he’s been coached to — every coach in the NFL has coached their defensive players to do this — he was coached to not let separation between his defender and Wes Welker. So his job is to come underneath Wes. Wes’ job is to make him go over the top, and that is why they collided with each other.
“It’s not a sense of Wes running into him and trying to take him out.”