PDA

View Full Version : Wesley Woodyard, Champ Bailey, Omar Bolden not at Broncos practice



Denver Native (Carol)
09-09-2013, 02:07 PM
The Broncos opened up preparations for Sunday's game against the New York Giants with a few players missing from practice on Monday morning.

Cornerback Champ Bailey did not participate in practice, recovering from a foot sprain. He didn't even take part in stretching activities at the start of the session. Along with Bailey's absence: linebacker Wesley Woodyard, who suffered an injured ankle Thursday in the season opener when Baltimore Ravens wide receiver Brandon Stokley dove into his legs to get to the football that Danny Trevathan dropped before crossing the goal line on his interception return.

Also missing from practice were wide receiver Trindon Holliday and safety Omar Bolden.

Afterward, Broncos coach John Fox said he would not give any injury updates until Wednesday.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_24050935/wesley-woodyard-champ-bailey-omar-bolden-not-at

jhns
09-09-2013, 02:15 PM
That dive by Stokley into Woodyards legs was about as bad as what Suh did. I watched the game again and there was really no reason for it. I understand going for the ball, but not throwing your entire body into the legs of a guy standing there. That kind of thing can end careers.

SR
09-09-2013, 03:33 PM
That dive by Stokley into Woodyards legs was about as bad as what Suh did. I watched the game again and there was really no reason for it. I understand going for the ball, but not throwing your entire body into the legs of a guy standing there. That kind of thing can end careers.

Stokely is a class act and I'm 100% confident when I say he didn't do it with any kind of malicious intent. To insinuate otherwise is idiotic.

CoachChaz
09-09-2013, 03:34 PM
Stokely is a class act and I'm 100% confident when I say he didn't do it with any kind of malicious intent. To insinuate otherwise is idiotic.

I agree...but...I did look a little excessive. If it were anyone else, it would have looked intentional

jhns
09-09-2013, 03:41 PM
Stokely is a class act and I'm 100% confident when I say he didn't do it with any kind of malicious intent. To insinuate otherwise is idiotic.

I don't care if it was malice or stupidity. He launched his body into the lower legs of another player. That is a terrible thing to do. Its not like he just dove at a ball next to him without seeing Woodyard. He ran 5-10 yards before making that dive.

smith49
09-09-2013, 03:59 PM
That dive by Stokley into Woodyards legs was about as bad as what Suh did. I watched the game again and there was really no reason for it. I understand going for the ball, but not throwing your entire body into the legs of a guy standing there. That kind of thing can end careers.

Stokely is a class act and I'm 100% confident when I say he didn't do it with any kind of malicious intent. To insinuate otherwise is idiotic.



100% agree with this statement!

I just don't se stokely doing that with any intent to hurt woody.

topscribe
09-09-2013, 05:00 PM
Stokes probably was not even aware of where Woody's legs were. He saw
the football and went after it.
.

SR
09-09-2013, 06:11 PM
I don't care if it was malice or stupidity. He launched his body into the lower legs of another player. That is a terrible thing to do. Its not like he just dove at a ball next to him without seeing Woodyard. He ran 5-10 yards before making that dive.

It would've been a terrible thing to do...if it was on purpose. It wasn't on purpose. Shit happens. I'm not going to wave that flag at Stokely.

Ziggy
09-09-2013, 08:20 PM
At this point, I think Woody would be the biggest loss. He calls the defensive plays and excels in pass coverage. Losing him would be a huge blow.

jhns
09-10-2013, 08:18 AM
Stokes probably was not even aware of where Woody's legs were. He saw
the football and went after it.
.

He spun around trying to put his body between the ball and Woodyard. He clearly knew he was there. He did that at his lower legs. Seriously guys, go watch the play before commenting. He didn't dive on the ball. He threw his body at Woodyards lower legs. If he had just dove on the ball, it wouldn't have happened that way.

"I like that player, he can do no wrong!" Not really a good argument.

broncofaninfla
09-10-2013, 09:01 AM
At this point, I think Woody would be the biggest loss. He calls the defensive plays and excels in pass coverage. Losing him would be a huge blow.

Agreed. There was a noticable drop off in play when he went out. Given the current state of the LB's we need Wood back in there ASAP.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2013, 11:34 AM
If a guy is going ofr the ball, he's reacting to the game. A guy can' react to the game, and go for the ball, and try to worry about the other guys on the field. He's reacting and playing the game. He wasn't trying to injure. I don't want guys to just stand around, lose the chance for a fumble recovery and then say "well, I didn't want to go for that ball because I was worried I would hit someone."

Dapper Dan
09-10-2013, 11:46 AM
I think they're a little banged up, so they're getting some rest since it's a long week.

claymore
09-10-2013, 11:53 AM
Stokely is a class act and I'm 100% confident when I say he didn't do it with any kind of malicious intent. To insinuate otherwise is idiotic.

Malicious might be a strong word. It was definitely unnecessary though.

claymore
09-10-2013, 11:54 AM
He spun around trying to put his body between the ball and Woodyard. He clearly knew he was there. He did that at his lower legs. Seriously guys, go watch the play before commenting. He didn't dive on the ball. He threw his body at Woodyards lower legs. If he had just dove on the ball, it wouldn't have happened that way.

"I like that player, he can do no wrong!" Not really a good argument.In lamens terms, I thought it was ****'ed up at the least.

Dapper Dan
09-10-2013, 12:00 PM
I'm trying to figure out how Stokley was supposed to run full speed and dive on the ball without running into Woodyard. The problem is, Woodyard should have jumped on the ball instead of trying to stay up and grab it. What was the point? He was in the end zone. Fall on it...touchdown.

G_Money
09-10-2013, 12:07 PM
Woodyard wasn't sure Trevathan had screwed up. He was thinking about it and reached down for it... and that's when he got rolled up on. I wish he'd thought a little faster, but then I could say the same x 10 about Trevathan. :tsk:

Still holping Wesley can play this week.

~G

Dapper Dan
09-10-2013, 12:17 PM
Woodyard wasn't sure Trevathan had screwed up. He was thinking about it and reached down for it... and that's when he got rolled up on. I wish he'd thought a little faster, but then I could say the same x 10 about Trevathan. :tsk:

Still holping Wesley can play this week.

~G

I guess Stokley was the only one still playing, just in case. And apparently he's a jerk for it.

G_Money
09-10-2013, 12:26 PM
I don't have a problem with it. Could have been the difference between winning the game and losing it at that point. It sucks for us, but it was our mistake. It's not like Suh blowing out the lineman's knee when he's 25 yards behind the play. The ball WAS the play. If Trevathan hadn't dropped it and it was a touchdown and then Stokley rolled up on his legs I'd have been calling for his scalp, but it was a live ball.

Our fault, our mess.

~G

jhns
09-10-2013, 12:55 PM
I'm trying to figure out how Stokley was supposed to run full speed and dive on the ball without running into Woodyard. The problem is, Woodyard should have jumped on the ball instead of trying to stay up and grab it. What was the point? He was in the end zone. Fall on it...touchdown.

By diving on the ball. Go head first and grab it with your arms. He saw a player there and flung himself into that players legs. He even turned before hitting Woodyard, showing that he knew he was flinging himself into Woodyard. He braced for the hit...

You seriously think there is no other way to go for that ball? What?

It was a stupid play on Stokleys part. It wasn't needed.

Dapper Dan
09-10-2013, 12:58 PM
By diving on the ball. Go head first and grab it with your arms. He saw a player there and flung himself into that players legs. He even turned before hitting Woodyard, showing that he knew he was flinging himself into Woodyard. He braced for the hit...

You seriously think there is no other way to go for that ball? What?

It was a stupid play on Stokleys part. It wasn't needed.

He put himself between the other player and the ball. But I guess it's smarter to lead with your helmet. That never hurts anyone.

jhns
09-10-2013, 01:01 PM
He put himself between the other player and the ball. But I guess it's smarter to lead with your helmet. That never hurts anyone.

By flinging his body into that players lower legs...

You are right. No one ever dives head first for the ball so that they can actually control it... And by that I mean it happens almost every single fumble.

I get it, you all think Stokley can do no wrong. I think he made a stupid play that I don't like seeing.

Dapper Dan
09-10-2013, 01:04 PM
By flinging his body into that players lower legs...

You are right. No one ever dives head first for the ball so that they can actually control it... And by that I mean it happens almost every single fumble.

I get it, you all think Stokley can do no wrong. I think he made a stupid play that I don't like seeing.

No. I don't think you do get it.

claymore
09-10-2013, 01:05 PM
He put himself between the other player and the ball. But I guess it's smarter to lead with your helmet. That never hurts anyone.

He could have kicked it out of bounds and nobody would have been hurt.

The questionable play happens at about 2:52.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIqW9b6nCpE

jhns
09-10-2013, 01:06 PM
No. I don't think you do get it.

So how did going after Woodyards legs instead of the ball work out for Stokley? He was clearly just doing what needed to be done!

Dapper Dan
09-10-2013, 01:07 PM
He could have kicked it out of bounds and nobody would have been hurt.

The questionable play happens at about 2:52.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIqW9b6nCpE

I've seen the play. More often than I'd like to.

Dapper Dan
09-10-2013, 01:10 PM
So how did going after Woodyards legs instead of the ball work out for Stokley? He was clearly just doing what needed to be done!

He didn't "go for his legs". He was going for the ball. He was trying to put himself between the other player and the ball. It's unfortunate, not dirty. It's not that Stokely can do no wrong. It doesn't seem logical, if you've followed football for the past 10 years, to think Brandon Stokley would intentially try and "go after" the knees of Woodyard. Show me one other example where Stokely made an intentionally dirty play.

jhns
09-10-2013, 01:16 PM
He didn't "go for his legs". He was going for the ball. He was trying to put himself between the other player and the ball. It's unfortunate, not dirty. It's not that Stokely can do no wrong. It doesn't seem logical, if you've followed football for the past 10 years, to think Brandon Stokley would intentially try and "go after" the knees of Woodyard. Show me one other example where Stokely made an intentionally dirty play.

I didn't say it was an intentional dirty play. I said it was a stupid play. You can make those without intent. It just requires you to not be thinking clearly. Woodyard even had his back to the ball and Stokley screwed up his chance at it because of the way he went in. It was all around dumb.

I'm not even sure why people have issues with what I said. I would like it if players would use a little more awareness to avoid diving into the lower legs of other players, especially in situations like this where it doesn't help them at all. What a horrible thought! Stokley is the best ever!

Slick
09-10-2013, 01:22 PM
Definately a testament to Stokley's awareness and intelligence. Three Broncos are arguing with Trevathan instead of recovering the ball as Stokley goes full bore and saved his team the points and the turnover.

topscribe
09-10-2013, 01:29 PM
i didn't say it was an intentional dirty play. I said it was a stupid play. You can make those without intent. It just requires you to not be thinking clearly. Woodyard even had his back to the ball and Stokley screwed up his chance at it because of the way he went in. It was all around dumb.
It was football. I wouldn't expect anything else of him. He went for the ball. That was what he was supposed to do.



Definately a testament to Stokley's awareness and intelligence. Three Broncos are arguing with Trevathan instead of recovering the ball as Stokley goes full bore and saved his team the points and the turnover.
Awareness, intelligence, intensity . . . all the reasons I would have liked to have seen the Broncos keep Stokes, Welker or no Welker.
.

SR
09-10-2013, 01:38 PM
So how did going after Woodyards legs instead of the ball work out for Stokley? He was clearly just doing what needed to be done!

He didn't go after Woodyard's legs. That's what you don't get.

jhns
09-10-2013, 01:39 PM
He didn't go after Woodyard's legs. That's what you don't get.

Then why did he brace for the hit on Woodyards legs? Was he under the impression that he was running into Woodyards torso as Woodyard was standing? He didn't just play the ball and screwed his chances at it in the process.

And why it this topscribe guy responding to my posts after making a big deal about putting me on ignore? I haven't changed top, you may want to rethink removing me from ignore. You clearly can't handle the personality.

Edit: There is really nothing left for me to argue here. If you don't want to see players use awareness and avoid diving into other players legs... Well, good for you! I think it should be avoided when it isn't needed and doesn't even help a little.

topscribe
09-10-2013, 01:49 PM
Then why did he brace for the hit on Woodyards legs? Was he under the impression that he was running into Woodyards torso as Woodyard was standing? He didn't just play the ball and screwed his chances at it in the process.

And why it this topscribe guy responding to my posts after making a big deal about putting me on ignore? I haven't changed top, you may want to rethink removing me from ignore. You clearly can't handle the personality.
Stay classy, jhns . . . :coffee:

G_Money
09-10-2013, 01:51 PM
The ball is in the end zone. Woodyard is reaching for the ball. If he doesn't separate Woody from the ball IMMEDIATELY it's a TD. Wes only needs to be holding the ball for a second to make that call happen. Woodyard is about to pick the ball up so Stokley is aiming for him. Then he misses grabbing it so the ball is on the ground and Stokley changes directions to jump on the ball instead, whipping his lower body into Woodyard's thanks to the wonders of momentum.

I don't see the crime. If Wes picks it up the first time it's a TD. If Danny doesn't drop it on the one, it's a TD. Stokely was paying attention and did what he had to do. It's like criticizing someone for laying out a player when no whistle was blown. No whistle = play is still going = play full-speed. The only one who figured that out was Stokley. Good for him, and bad for us.

~G

LawDog
09-10-2013, 03:49 PM
The ball is in the end zone. Woodyard is reaching for the ball. If he doesn't separate Woody from the ball IMMEDIATELY it's a TD. Wes only needs to be holding the ball for a second to make that call happen. Woodyard is about to pick the ball up so Stokley is aiming for him. Then he misses grabbing it so the ball is on the ground and Stokley changes directions to jump on the ball instead, whipping his lower body into Woodyard's thanks to the wonders of momentum.

I don't see the crime. If Wes picks it up the first time it's a TD. If Danny doesn't drop it on the one, it's a TD. Stokely was paying attention and did what he had to do. It's like criticizing someone for laying out a player when no whistle was blown. No whistle = play is still going = play full-speed. The only one who figured that out was Stokley. Good for him, and bad for us.

~G

If Woodyard picks it up it isn't a TD, you can't advance the ball into the endzone on a fumble. It would have been spotted at the 2 yard line where Danny dropped it.

G_Money
09-10-2013, 03:58 PM
Very true (and I mis-stated) but he still merely has to take possession of it to get the play to end, because you can't advance the fumble. The problem is that Stokley is trying to stop Woodyard from taking possession of the ball. I don't care how casually Wes is reaching for it, possession is possession. So Stokely stops him from possessing the football and giving it to the Broncos at the one. That's his job.

The lesson for the Broncos is 1) Don't be a dumbass and drop the ball at the one, thus losing the score, the possession and possibly a teammate, and 2) if you even THINK it might be a fumble, jump your ass on the ball and assume the fetal position to protect yourself and the ball.

It isn't Stokley's job to make sure our players are safe and to ask them for permission to pick up the loose ball. He's trying to win a game. Protect yourself and the football at all times. Marquess of Queensberry rules and all.

~G

SR
09-10-2013, 03:58 PM
If Woodyard picks it up it isn't a TD, you can't advance the ball into the endzone on a fumble. It would have been spotted at the 2 yard line where Danny dropped it.

But it's still Denver ball at that point...semantics really.

topscribe
09-10-2013, 04:15 PM
But it's still Denver ball at that point...semantics really.
Just deleted my post that said the same thing.
.

jhns
09-10-2013, 04:21 PM
Just a couple of points. The ball was on the ground and behind Woodyard. Stokley just has to kick it out of bounds. The last argument was exactly what I said as some people arguing with me agreed with that last post...lol... He dove at Woodyards lower legs when there was no need for it. Others doing stupid stuff doesn't change a thing.

Its good to see so many concerned about player safety. Who needs legs in the NFL? Suh was just playing hard.

topscribe
09-10-2013, 04:24 PM
Just a couple of points. The ball was on the ground and behind Woodyard. Stokley just has to kick it out of bounds. The last argument was exactly what I said as some people arguing with me agreed with that last post...lol... He dove at Woodyards lower legs when there was no need for it. Others doing stupid stuff doesn't change a thing.

Its good to see so many concerned about player safety. Who needs legs in the NFL? Suh was just playing hard.
Wrong thread. Suh is talked about here (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/555134-Ndamukong-Suh-fined-100K-for-hit).
.

SR
09-10-2013, 04:27 PM
Just a couple of points. The ball was on the ground and behind Woodyard. Stokley just has to kick it out of bounds. The last argument was exactly what I said as some people arguing with me agreed with that last post...lol... He dove at Woodyards lower legs when there was no need for it. Others doing stupid stuff doesn't change a thing.

Its good to see so many concerned about player safety. Who needs legs in the NFL? Suh was just playing hard.

We get that you don't get it. You made your non-point. Move on and destroy another thread with your cardboard box personality. TIA.

jhns
09-10-2013, 04:30 PM
We get that you don't get it. You made your non-point. Move on and destroy another thread with your cardboard box personality. TIA.

What a great contribution. Thanks for playing.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2013, 04:30 PM
By diving on the ball. Go head first and grab it with your arms. He saw a player there and flung himself into that players legs. He even turned before hitting Woodyard, showing that he knew he was flinging himself into Woodyard. He braced for the hit...

You seriously think there is no other way to go for that ball? What?

It was a stupid play on Stokleys part. It wasn't needed.

Ok..I went and watched this play again and again.... and I've come to the conclusion that you are just upset that Woodyard got hurt and arn't looking at this with any kind of logical mindset. Stokely didn't do ANYTHING wrong. He was PURELY going after the balll, and in doing so, turned his body to put himself between Woodyard and the fumble. Probably instinctively figuring that Woodyard would be making a move for the ball on the ground.

He didn't do anything wrong, he absolutely couldn't really have "changed" The way he went after the fumble, and there is NO WAY you can figure that he should have "considered" going for a fumble differently than to simply GO AFTER THE BALL. You can't SERIOUSLY expect him to say "gee, I go after this ball that is laying on the ground, in the END ZONE, carefully and gently so that I don't hurt anyone." His only mindset was to go GET that ball, and get it fast and keep it away from the Broncos, which is what he did.

Now, before you go into this "if you don't see it how I see it, than you must think Stokely can do no wrong" BULL, I think you should try to actually watch the film with a more open mind. If you don't see it how I di, well, its because you want to believe that Stokely was intentionally trying to hurt someone and you don't like Stokely.

G_Money
09-10-2013, 04:30 PM
Just a couple of points. The ball was on the ground and behind Woodyard. Stokley just has to kick it out of bounds. The last argument was exactly what I said as some people arguing with me agreed with that last post...lol... He dove at Woodyards lower legs when there was no need for it. Others doing stupid stuff doesn't change a thing.

Its good to see so many concerned about player safety. Who needs legs in the NFL? Suh was just playing hard.

This is like the, "I would toooootally have done something different at the Aurora shootings than those feebs because I've had all day to think about it" kind of argument. He had to switch from hitting Woodyard to jumping on the ball in a second. Now he's supposed to switch his body lean and aim a kick at the ball that might be moved by the time he gets there? If Stokley slid in with his spikes and broke Woodyard's arm in the process would that have been malicious too?

There's a ball, Stokley dives for it at full-speed, end of story. Suh's play had nothing to do with a ball in the area or an opponent who had any shot to do anything about said ball. That's why it's a penalty and a fine.

~G

topscribe
09-10-2013, 04:34 PM
What a great contribution. Thanks for playing.

And why it this topscribe guy responding to my posts after making a big deal about putting me on ignore? I haven't changed top, you may want to rethink removing me from ignore. You clearly can't handle the personality.

Looks as if this thread is just full of great contributions . . .
.

jhns
09-10-2013, 04:34 PM
Ok..I went and watched this play again and again.... and I've come to the conclusion that you are just upset that Woodyard got hurt and arn't looking at this with any kind of logical mindset. Stokely didn't do ANYTHING wrong. He was PURELY going after the balll, and in doing so, turned his body to put himself between Woodyard and the fumble. Probably instinctively figuring that Woodyard would be making a move for the ball on the ground.

He didn't do anything wrong, he absolutely couldn't really have "changed" The way he went after the fumble, and there is NO WAY you can figure that he should have "considered" going for a fumble differently than to simply GO AFTER THE BALL. You can't SERIOUSLY expect him to say "gee, I go after this ball that is laying on the ground, in the END ZONE, carefully and gently so that I don't hurt anyone." His only mindset was to go GET that ball, and get it fast and keep it away from the Broncos, which is what he did.

Now, before you go into this "if you don't see it how I see it, than you must think Stokely can do no wrong" BULL, I think you should try to actually watch the film with a more open mind. If you don't see it how I di, well, its because you want to believe that Stokely was intentionally trying to hurt someone and you don't like Stokely.

I have stated multiple times that I'm not arguing that Stokley tried to hurt Woodyard. Great response though. He clearly couldn't handle that any better than diving into Woodyards lower legs. Sorry I offended you.

Again, I'm not arguing that Stokley tried to injure Woodyard. Maybe if I post it 20 more times, you will finally get it.

jhns
09-10-2013, 04:37 PM
Looks as if this thread is just full of great contributions . . .
.

Poor guy. Told you it was a bad idea.

topscribe
09-10-2013, 04:39 PM
Poor guy. Told you it was a bad idea.
lol - You're right. You haven't changed . . .

[/pissing contest]
.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2013, 04:42 PM
I have stated multiple times that I'm not arguing that Stokley tried to hurt Woodyard. Great response though. He clearly couldn't handle that any better than diving into Woodyards lower legs. Sorry I offended you.

Again, I'm not arguing that Stokley tried to injure Woodyard. Maybe if I post it 20 more times, you will finally get it.

You stated time and time again that he KNEW he was diving into Woodyards legs and chose to do it. It's really an absurd argument either way. You want to believe the Stokely simply should have reacted, gone in nice and gentle, and maybe said excuse me to Wesley on the way.

The truth is, Stokely didn't do anything wrong.... at all. There is nothing to complain about, and this "it was not needed" is like saying "that last touchdown wasn't really needed, as it turns out we beat them by 2." Stokes wasn't looking to see "what was needed" when going after that fumble. He was going after that football, and turning his body to put himself between the nearest Bronco and the ball. Just as he should have done. Injuries happen when players are sitting still and others are moving full speed. Wesley was sitting still while Stokes was moving full speed. It's not good when it happens, but IT HAPPENS.

To look back and say "that wasn't needed".. "that wasn't necessary"...is looking at a replay and looking for a FAULT on a replay of someone acting on pure reaction.

But then, I'm sure I just don't think Stokely can do anything wrong.

SR
09-10-2013, 04:43 PM
He won't get it Rav...we're all wasting our time here.

jhns
09-10-2013, 04:55 PM
You stated time and time again that he KNEW he was diving into Woodyards legs and chose to do it. It's really an absurd argument either way. You want to believe the Stokely simply should have reacted, gone in nice and gentle, and maybe said excuse me to Wesley on the way.

The truth is, Stokely didn't do anything wrong.... at all. There is nothing to complain about, and this "it was not needed" is like saying "that last touchdown wasn't really needed, as it turns out we beat them by 2." Stokes wasn't looking to see "what was needed" when going after that fumble. He was going after that football, and turning his body to put himself between the nearest Bronco and the ball. Just as he should have done. Injuries happen when players are sitting still and others are moving full speed. Wesley was sitting still while Stokes was moving full speed. It's not good when it happens, but IT HAPPENS.

To look back and say "that wasn't needed".. "that wasn't necessary"...is looking at a replay and looking for a FAULT on a replay of someone acting on pure reaction.

But then, I'm sure I just don't think Stokely can do anything wrong.

He didn't know Woodyard was there as he braced for the impact... Sure, Stokley is a blind moron. He could have kicked the ball and accomplished the same thing. He could have dove straight on it and not gone in all wild, which just resulted in him not getting it. His reaction was a poor one. As I said, a stupid play.

Dapper Dan
09-10-2013, 10:34 PM
Momentum would still have propelled him into Woodyard. I don't believe leading with his helmet or cleats would be any safer.

pnbronco
09-11-2013, 02:41 PM
I was going to ask if there have been any updates on Champ?

G....great explanation on Stok. I'm not even going to pretend to not be bias on my feeling for Stok, but he is a class act all the way and would never try to hurt another player.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-11-2013, 03:53 PM
I was going to ask if there have been any updates on Champ?

G....great explanation on Stok. I'm not even going to pretend to not be bias on my feeling for Stok, but he is a class act all the way and would never try to hurt another player.

Mike Klis ‏@MikeKlis 3h

Back at practice - CJ Anderson Trindon Holliday Omar Bolden

Not practicing - champ (foot) Dreessen (knee) Woodyard (ankle)

Broncolingus
09-11-2013, 09:30 PM
I agree on Woodyard being the biggest issue if not able to go or not 100%...but hopefully he'll be fine.

Generate consistent pressure on the QB from the front-four (and not blitzing every friggin down) our current secondary (even minus Champ for another game) ought to be able to handle the G-Men...

JMO...

SR
09-11-2013, 09:32 PM
Woody said he'll be a go for Sunday.

Saw that on the Post earlier I think. Or maybe here. I dunno:

Simple Jaded
09-12-2013, 07:13 PM
If Woodyard picks it up it isn't a TD, you can't advance the ball into the endzone on a fumble. It would have been spotted at the 2 yard line where Danny dropped it.

I thought (at least at one point) that this rule only applied to the final minutes of a half? In which case only the ball carrier could recover.

LawDog
09-12-2013, 07:33 PM
I thought (at least at one point) that this rule only applied to the final minutes of a half? In which case only the ball carrier could recover.

"Fumble

The distinction between a fumble and a muff should be kept in mind in considering rules about fumbles. A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball. A muff is the touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession.
A fumble may be advanced by any player on either team regardless of whether recovered before or after ball hits the ground.
A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent’s end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.

On a play from scrimmage, if an offensive player fumbles anywhere on the field during fourth down, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If any player fumbles after the two-minute warning in a half, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If recovered by any other offensive player, the ball is dead at the spot of the fumble unless it is recovered behind the spot of the fumble. In that case, the ball is dead at the spot of recovery. Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time.

A muffed hand-to-hand snap from center is treated as a fumble."

It appears you are correct. I was thinking of the fumble out of bounds from the first paragraph (similar to Decker's fumble last week that went forward out of bounds but came back to the spot of the fumble). Good catch.