Week 12 (Game 11!): Patriots @ Vikings on Thursday

Section15Box113

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,175
Inside Lou Gorman's Head
Beyond all of the non-calls, kickoff return, etc, etc.

Even with all of that, it came down to two plays:
1. The Henry non-TD.
2. The sack on 3rd and 7 at the MIN 30 with 2:15 left to make it 4th and 16 at the MIN 39

He had his hand under it. Four point swing. All else equal (yeah, I know), that’s 33-30.

And the sack made the conversion so, so tough. But with the Henry TD, you only need 3 to tie.

If they’re down 3, are they running shorter routes/quicker reads? 48 yarder is feasible. 57, less so.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
4,059
What I learned more than anything was the Vikings are a paper tiger. Almost gave up that 4th and 16 and allowed damn near 400 passing yards to US.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
35,246
Here
I disagree, I think Minnesota is pretty good. Maybe not 1 seed good, but probably as dangerous as good a bet as anyone in the NFC right now, given there's no real juggernauts.
 

OnTheBlack

lurker
Dec 23, 2020
214
Just a really dumb team. They could have won this game by 20 with better clock management, less boneheaded penalties and an evenly called game.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
23,903
Newton
Anyone thinking that fielding that punt at the 5 was a bad play is nuts.... a big play there was basically the only chance they had to tie the game.

80 yards with no time outs from the 20? Come on.
Plus, Marcus knew the guy out kicked the coverage. If he had broken that one tackle he might’ve taken it to the house again.
 

Helmet Head

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
3,628
Central Mass
Really disappointed with the defense today. Thought they were an elite type of defense coming in. No longer feel that way. Play a semi real team and get exposed. Theme of this team over the last few years
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,801
Really disappointed with the defense today. Thought they were an elite type of defense coming in. No longer feel that way. Play a semi real team and get exposed. Theme of this team over the last few years
I think they’re good. Many penalties kept them on the field
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
7,679
Really disappointed with the defense today. Thought they were an elite type of defense coming in. No longer feel that way. Play a semi real team and get exposed. Theme of this team over the last few years
Almost like they are a rebuilding team with good coaching that can lead them to a better record against mediocre teams. But I know you don’t like this theme so carry on.
 

GB5

lurker
Aug 26, 2013
438
1. Beli screwing the clock up at end of half
2. Henry not going out of bounds
3. Mac’s repeated inability to throw the ball away
4. Running out of time in first half.
5. Judon offsides on 3rd down
6. Defenseless receiver when it would have been 3rd and 13
7. Kickoff return TD
8. 2 shanked punts
9. Fielding a punt at 1 yard line.
10. Throwing 20 yards downfiekd on 3rd and 1, and having two receivers collide into each other.

Probably some more I am missing…
 

Scott Cooper's Grand Slam

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2008
3,310
New England
This was probably Mac’s best game of 2022, but I don’t enjoy watching him play football. It feels like he can be counted on to make a bad read, throw a turnover or take a sack at the worst time.

He could still be New England’s best option at QB. I just hate his game.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,801
This is the most bizarre non catch I've seen. I mean at least with the other baffling ones, it's the result of a stupid rule. This one, I mean he clearly has his hand under the ball. Sure, part of the ball hits the ground, but he never loses control. Just an absurd incomplete call.
He clearly loses control, how do you not see that? The ball spins. Now, the question is why does he lose control? It’s not clear to me it is because the ball hits the ground. In super slow mo maybe it grazes the ground but I’m fine with that being called a catch.
 

JOBU

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 22, 2021
5,147
I’m absolutely ripped shit over the HH non TD. Worst case you can make an argue that he bobbled and gain control at the 6” yard line. There is no ducking way you can look at that replay and definitively say the ball hit the ground. His hand was under it. If that call on the field was incomplete or something I would have expected it to be ruled as “call stands” but there’s no way you can overturn that shit none
 

Section15Box113

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,175
Inside Lou Gorman's Head

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,031
I disagree, I think Minnesota is pretty good. Maybe not 1 seed good, but probably as dangerous as good a bet as anyone in the NFC right now, given there's no real juggernauts.
They just got beat by another NFC team at home 40-3 about 100 hours ago and were noncompetitive against Philly too. They were 8-2 and only laying 2.5 at home to a 6-4 team. They proceeded to get badly outplayed and only won by an ungodly combo of circumstances. This brought their point differential to +5. They’re really not good.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
35,246
Here
He clearly loses control, how do you not see that? The ball spins. Now, the question is why does he lose control? It’s not clear to me it is because the ball hits the ground. In super slow mo maybe it grazes the ground but I’m fine with that being called a catch.
I meant he never lost control as the ball was touching the ground. The ball can touch the ground if you control it as it does. He loses control AFTER. How is it incomplete?
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,650
from the wilds of western ma
Not nearly as sanguine as others regarding this being a building block game for Mac. He seems to have made little to no progress in pressure situations, takes too many sacks when should throw the ball away, has little ability to extend plays in the pocket, and in general inspires no confidence in the critical late game moments. It’s still probably the right thing to do playing him the rest of the way this year, but I think his ceiling is coming into view, and it’s pretty pedestrian.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
35,246
Here
They just got beat by another NFC team at home 40-3 about 100 hours ago and were noncompetitive against Philly too. They were 8-2 and only laying 2.5 at home to a 6-4 team. They proceeded to get badly outplayed and only won by an ungodly combo of circumstances. This brought their point differential to +5. They’re really not good.
Ok, well they have the inside track record wise and who is clearly good in the NFC?
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,801
Definitive angle in my book:

View: https://twitter.com/boston_diehards/status/1595983444370403329?s=46&t=k8q9JgVk7pig-FQvEE3y3Q


Shows his hand under the ball.

This *has* to be a catch.

The ball can move upon contact with the ground if the hand is under it.
The ground can’t help you make the catch.
In no universe did the ground help the catch in this case. Hard stop.
If that ball touches the ground it’s not a catch because of how it moves. The ball is dead there (I think) so he cannot regain possession. I still am not sure it hit the ground.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
35,246
Here
If that ball touches the ground it’s not a catch because of how it moves. The ball is dead there (I think) so he cannot regain possession. I still am not sure it hit the ground.
That's not true, you can still have possession if part of the ball hits the ground. There's nothing there are at all to demonstrate the ball aided him in the process of the catch. He clearly had it.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,801
That's not true, you can still have possession if part of the ball hits the ground. There's nothing there are at all to demonstrate the ball aided him in the process of the catch. He clearly had it.
but it can’t move like it did. I’ll defer to CFB_rules
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
35,246
Here
but it can’t move like it did. I’ll defer to CFB_rules
I don't see it, it looks like it moved exactly the way someone holding a football would cause it to move. It doesn't look like lost possession to me in the slightest.
 

Rudy's Curve

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2006
2,031
Or maybe those games are an aberration? I mean shit games happen. They've played 8 other games.
37-point losses generally aren’t an aberration. There’s a reason they were only laying 2.5 at home to a team they came in two games ahead. They’re not even close to Dallas or Philly and a healthy Niner team is considerably better too.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,801
I don't see it, it looks like it moved exactly the way someone holding a football would cause it to move. It doesn't look like lost possession to me in the slightest.
The ends of the ball (the noses) literally flip. If it hits the ground at all and does that it is not a catch by my understanding of the rule. You’re saying “how someone holding it”…do you understand that is not what we are debating? If it doesn’t touch the ground it can absolutely move like that but if it touches the ground and then moves like that, not a catch.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
18,863
This is where the ball "hits the ground". His hand is CLEARLY under it.

58102

This is where he loses control. AFTERWARDS.

58103

I get that it was a close play and should have been reviewed. But there's no way at all that this should have been OVERTURNED. I could see, maybe, if it was initially ruled incomplete, that this wouldn't be enough to overturn an incomplete call on the field, but since it was ruled a TD, there needed to be definitive evidence that the call was wrong.

I don't know in what universe that can be seen as definitively an incomplete pass, when his hand was under it the whole time.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
35,246
Here
The ends of the ball (the noses) literally flip. If it hits the ground at all and does that it is not a catch by my understanding of the rule. You’re saying “how someone holding it”…do you understand that is not what we are debating? If it doesn’t touch the ground it can absolutely move like that but if it touches the ground and then moves like that, not a catch.
It moves when he rolls over, it's not the ground that causes the nose of the ball to flip. That happens afterwards. That's literally what Tirico is saying in that clip.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,801
This is where the ball "hits the ground". His hand is CLEARLY under it.

View attachment 58102

This is where he loses control. AFTERWARDS.

View attachment 58103

I get that it was a close play and should have been reviewed. But there's no way at all that this should have been OVERTURNED. I could see, maybe, if it was initially ruled incomplete, that this wouldn't be enough to overturn an incomplete call on the field, but since it was ruled a TD, there needed to be definitive evidence that the call was wrong.

I don't know in what universe that can be seen as definitively an incomplete pass, when his hand was under it the whole time.
it’s closer than what you capped

58104
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,801
Do you think that's "definitive evidence" of a non-catch, that should have overturned the call on the field?
I said I didn’t already but I’m not convinced by rule that the refs are wrong. I do want a game where that stands as a catch.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
18,863
His hand is under the ball. He loses control afterwards. Again, I can see why it wouldn't be enough to overturn an on-field ruling of incomplete, but in no way should that have been enough to overturn an on-field ruling of a catch.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
23,903
Newton
Wow, Bill telling the beat writers to go the officials with the pool reporter to get an explanation on the Henry overturn – “Isn’t that what you do?” Sounds like he was likely livid.
 
Last edited:

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
35,246
Here
37-point losses generally aren’t an aberration. There’s a reason they were only laying 2.5 at home to a team they came in two games ahead. They’re not even close to Dallas or Philly and a healthy Niner team is considerably better too.
Yeah, I mean I don't know. Minnesota has a ton of talent on offense and some wreckers in the front 7 on D. Adding Hockenson to the mix, (probably a top 5 TE) I don't think any team in the NFC is clearly ahead of them tbh, they all have their flaws. I do think blowout wins can be aberrations, absolutely. I don't think Dallas would have been a big favorite against the Pats either. Philly maybe slightly bigger, but I doubt it would have been over 5.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,801
His hand is under the ball. He loses control afterwards. Again, I can see why it wouldn't be enough to overturn an on-field ruling of incomplete, but in no way should that have been enough to overturn an on-field ruling of a catch.
His hand is under the red highlighted portion, if the ball is hitting the yellow highlight (ground) and then moves as it did, I can’t really lose it over the refs call.
58105