PDA

View Full Version : Illegal Contact



sneakers
08-12-2014, 04:41 PM
I wish they would have enforced this rule during the last Super Bowl.

The Seattle defense could have ripped off the Broncos WR's pants, bent them over, and had their way with them during that game and the refs still wouldn't have called a penalty.

Do you like the Illegal contact being enforced more, or not?

BroncoWave
08-12-2014, 04:48 PM
To be honest, I don't like it. I know from our perspective it would have helped us in the SB, but I don't think it's good for the game. The game is too slanted toward offense right now. I don't think they needed to change how illegal contact is called.

sneakers
08-12-2014, 05:03 PM
To be honest, I don't like it. I know from our perspective it would have helped us in the SB, but I don't think it's good for the game. The game is too slanted toward offense right now. I don't think they needed to change how illegal contact is called.

I don't think they are changing how it is called, they are just enforcing the rule in place (I wish baseball would do this with the strike zone)

Ravage!!!
08-12-2014, 06:13 PM
Right now, the game is basically... Run an offensive play, look for the flag. Pass the ball, look for the flag. EVERY incomplete pass comes with the fans holding their breath waiting for the flag. Its actually become a PLAY. If you are down by 3 points and need to go 50 yrds, who here believes the defense can stop three deep pass plays in a row without getting a PI or IC call? It's become absurd. How can you play defense in today's NFL?

atwater27
08-12-2014, 06:39 PM
To be honest, I don't like it. I know from our perspective it would have helped us in the SB, but I don't think it's good for the game. The game is too slanted toward offense right now. I don't think they needed to change how illegal contact is called.

It hasn't been legal to molest receivers after 5 yards since before you were born. The Seahawks are the worst offenders by far. It is time the NFL simply enforced existing laws. Interesting. Enforce existing laws. What a concept....

gregbroncs
08-12-2014, 06:59 PM
As long as they call it even. Problem is teams like Seattle believe if you contact a receiver on every play the refs won't call them all and will just get used to the contact. And so far they have been correct. The contact they are allowed to make with receivers is ridiculous. Then other teams play it the same way and get called because their guys don't do it every play of every game. As games get more important refs allow them to play more and even less of these illegal plays get called.
.
It's great they are emphasizing it now. But it means little by the time the real games start.

CoachChaz
08-12-2014, 11:00 PM
Every year referees talk about enforcing rules and go all out with flags in the pre-season...only to pull back once the season starts. I wouldn't expect anything different this year

CrazyHorse
08-13-2014, 12:19 AM
It would have made no difference if it was called closer in the Super Bowl. Our offensive line getting manhandled had more to do with it than our receivers getting manhandled.

gregbroncs
08-13-2014, 12:32 AM
It would have made no difference if it was called closer in the Super Bowl. Our offensive line getting manhandled had more to do with it than our receivers getting manhandled.This is absolutely true. Doesn't change that they do it though.

CrazyHorse
08-13-2014, 03:01 AM
This is absolutely true. Doesn't change that they do it though.

Had it been called consistently throughout the season though Seattle might not have made it there.

Northman
08-13-2014, 05:30 AM
To be honest, I don't like it. I know from our perspective it would have helped us in the SB, but I don't think it's good for the game. The game is too slanted toward offense right now. I don't think they needed to change how illegal contact is called.


I agree with this. I dont want this league to become the arena league where 40-50 pts a game is the norm. I like solid defensive play even if it means we got our asses kicked. Just tells me we need to toughen up as a team.

BroncoWave
08-13-2014, 07:48 AM
I agree with this. I dont want this league to become the arena league where 40-50 pts a game is the norm. I like solid defensive play even if it means we got our asses kicked. Just tells me we need to toughen up as a team.

In this age of fantasy football's massive popularity and things like the Red Zone network, I have a feeling that the NFL probably isn't too concerned on helping out the defensive side of the ball any time soon.

atwater27
08-13-2014, 08:02 AM
I agree with this. I dont want this league to become the arena league where 40-50 pts a game is the norm. I like solid defensive play even if it means we got our asses kicked. Just tells me we need to toughen up as a team.

Since when is grabbing receivers with your hands and holding them considered solid play?

atwater27
08-13-2014, 08:04 AM
In this age of fantasy football's massive popularity and things like the Red Zone network, I have a feeling that the NFL probably isn't too concerned on helping out the defensive side of the ball any time soon.

No, it's about following the rules. The NFL knows there are many fans of good defense and big hits, and if it weren't for those darned concussions, they would allow the hell out of monster hitting. That is what has hurt a lot of defenses.

Joel
08-13-2014, 08:10 AM
As long as they call it even. Problem is teams like Seattle believe if you contact a receiver on every play the refs won't call them all and will just get used to the contact. And so far they have been correct. The contact they are allowed to make with receivers is ridiculous. Then other teams play it the same way and get called because their guys don't do it every play of every game. As games get more important refs allow them to play more and even less of these illegal plays get called.
.
It's great they are emphasizing it now. But it means little by the time the real games start.
This was my beef with Seattle all last year: 31 teams are bound by current rules; refs let ONE team play like it's 1970. Gee, wonder who's gonna win the Big Oneóbut don't wonder MUCH....

I don't care if we use 2005 rules or 1905 rules as long as we ALL use the SAME rules, so it's fair. When refs make some teams play basketball against others playing hockey, it's a joke.


It would have made no difference if it was called closer in the Super Bowl. Our offensive line getting manhandled had more to do with it than our receivers getting manhandled.
Absolutely. Fortunately, we paid big bucks for many top free agents to fix what went catastrophically wrong from the Super Bowls very first play, so we're fine now, right? RIGHT...?

Joel
08-13-2014, 08:11 AM
I frankly think refs let defenses get away with a little more against us, figuring they need help, and when Decker jumps around screaming for flags (which he admittedly did too much) they're like, "You're still shattering passing records left and right: It's fine." But rules are supposed to maintain equal OPPORTUNITY, not handicap the most talented teams and/or boost the least talented so teams like the Jags can compete with teams like us. Except sometimes I wonder if that's NOT the idea with new NFL rules; no one (except us) will pay to watch us bury Jacksonville 108-0.

I also suspect that "all trees must be the same height" mentality makes it harder for our defense, because when they're wrestling with receivers for every pass, clubbing passers to the ground and decleating ball carriers refs are like, "Hey, it's 41-10; don't be a jerk about it." But it's a full contact sport, and taking the fourth quarter off means no new contract, whatever the score.

It's not all (and maybe not mostly) on refs though. Most of last year, I wondered how a team in TODAYS league could stay competitive with a bunch of guys suspended for doping; how it could get away with publicly PROUDLY calling itself "the Legion of Boom" in the arena flag football league. Then I finally realized their logic: If they all do it all the time, the league CAN'T catch EVERYONE EVERYTIME. Same rationale the Raiders used in the '70s: If we play dirty every down, we'll get the most penalties, but still get away with half of it; they can't see everything.... ;)

The difference is Seattle's made a science of it. There was an eye-opening article saw last year about the Seahawks runing EVERY PRACTICE with guys covered in armor and the no-no areas clearly marked so defenders learn where to deliver totally legal yet totally injurious early/late hits. They've done exactly what I said teams would do if the NFL focused on WHERE or HOW players tried to injure opponents instead of banning INTENTIONAL injuries themselves: Keep right on deliberately injuring opponents, and simply do it in areas that's still legal.

The difference between dirty & mean is trying to inflict injury rather than pain; apparently, the NFL still doesn't know—so teams like Seattle still don't CARE—about that: They don't HAVE to care.

Northman
08-13-2014, 08:20 AM
Since when is grabbing receivers with your hands and holding them considered solid play?

Gimme a break man. Whenever a team has a great defense the complaints and overreactions are always the same. This shit happened a few years ago after the Colts cried to the league about the Patriots supposedly doing the same thing. Yes, some defenders are more aggressive at times than others. But do they do it ever single play throughout an entire game? No. Total overreaction as usual. The funny thing is nothing ever gets said about the bigger receivers putting their hands on the defenders and pulling them out of the way so they can get the ball and thats also illegal. I know its easy to hate on Seattle for the type of attitude and smack talk they give (i surely do) but im not going to make excuses that they cheat or are committing penalties on every play when that is just not the case.

atwater27
08-13-2014, 08:24 AM
Gimme a break man. Whenever a team has a great defense the complaints and overreactions are always the same. This shit happened a few years ago after the Colts cried to the league about the Patriots supposedly doing the same thing. Yes, some defenders are more aggressive at times than others. But do they do it ever single play throughout an entire game? No. Total overreaction as usual. The funny thing is nothing ever gets said about the bigger receivers putting their hands on the defenders and pulling them out of the way so they can get the ball and thats also illegal. I know its easy to hate on Seattle for the type of attitude and smack talk they give (i surely do) but im not going to make excuses that they cheat or are committing penalties on every play when that is just not the case. You have me mistaken, as usual. Holding or not, the Seahawks have the best defense I have seen in a decade. I think they should call contact on receivers too. and I never said the seachickens do it on every play. So you give me a break.

Valar Morghulis
08-13-2014, 02:39 PM
Why are we allowing immigrants any contact - if they are illegal they should be deported. End of chat.

Joel
08-13-2014, 06:20 PM
Why are we allowing immigrants any contact - if they are illegal they should be deported. End of chat.
Tagliabues stupid rule entitles them to a mandatory hearing to determine if they fled locker room bullying in the region and qualify for a trade. I'm fine with sticking Dick Sherman in a penalty box with armed refs until we have a verdict either way though. :)

Jaded
08-14-2014, 11:16 PM
The Broncos have pumped a lot of money in their OL, there's only so much money you can pump into one position group.

Meanwhile, one of the OL the Broncos absolutely had to have instead of Peyton Manning has probably played his final game long before Manning. Remember when they shoulda built a dynasty around Tebow using all that precious cap space on ProBowl FA's instead of giving $98 mil to Manning? That was funny.

Joel
08-16-2014, 04:23 PM
The Broncos have pumped a lot of money in their OL, there's only so much money you can pump into one position group.
I admit I haven't paid much attention this offseason: Exactly where did the Broncos "pump a lot of money in their OL" since it made our explosive offense explode on the launchpad last February? We got back an injured starter, and since he's our best lineman (if fully recovered) and plays the most important spot, that's huge, but our other 4 starters started the SB; didn't seem to do us much good, and one of them's gone from the RT spot he couldn't handle in 3 years trying to the G spot he hasn't played since college.

I seem to recall we drafted a linemen in the 3rd or 4th round, but I'm not up on the current CBA; does the rookie salary cap pay 3rd rounders a lot of money?

Before this turns into another one of THOSE threads, I'll stop talking offensive linemen in a thread about the defensive secondary; last word's yours if you want it.

Jaded
08-16-2014, 07:23 PM
They have two big contracts on the OL, Clady and Vasquez, they're most likely headed for a 3rd one in Franklin. While it clearly doesn't meet your standards and expectations for allocating salary cap slots, it certainly makes reasonable sense in the land of reality.

Btw, anybody who has paid attention this offseason would tell you this wasn't exactly the best year to decide to spend big on FA OL.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/transactions/free-agents/ot

G's and C's was even worse.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/transactions/free-agents/g

Oh well, I guess they'll have to get by with just two All-Pro linemen.

OB
08-19-2014, 05:46 PM
5351

I have absolutely no idea if this is true or not

atwater27
08-19-2014, 06:52 PM
they should have never let it get so outrageous in the first place

Joel
08-24-2014, 11:18 AM
They have two big contracts on the OL, Clady and Vasquez, they're most likely headed for a 3rd one in Franklin. While it clearly doesn't meet your standards and expectations for allocating salary cap slots, it certainly makes reasonable sense in the land of reality.
We'll see how big Franklins contract is AFTER this year; we didn't move him inside because desperation for the stellar LG he may not be trumped need for the stellar RT he's DEFINITELY not.


Btw, anybody who has paid attention this offseason would tell you this wasn't exactly the best year to decide to spend big on FA OL.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/transactions/free-agents/ot
Alberts 88 average (of TWO?) ratings isn't bad; far better than Franklin or Clark, though I concede we couldn't afford to pay him $10 mil. I figured KC would do that, at the expense of:


G's and C's was even worse.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/transactions/free-agents/g
Jon Asamoah, who's getting a budget-busting $2 million this year that peaks at $3.75 million if he plays every game of 2018. He's a year younger than Vasquez; we'd have been locked into a pair of starting stud Gs for the next 3 years. Failing that, the OTHER guard KC released, Geoff Schwartz, is making even less this year (though more on the back end) and has NFL experience playing OT, too, though it looks like a preseason toe injury will cost him all or most of this season.

Beyond KC, Willie Colon replaced his one year placeholder contract with the Jets with an IDENTICAL one making the same as Asamoah. At 31, this may've been his last chance for a big long term contract, but a healthy signing bonus spread over a long contract probably would've brought him onboard with minimal pain, especially since he's heading toward Win Now mode himself.


Oh well, I guess they'll have to get by with just two All-Pro linemen.
No problem. Those 2 All Pros can play 5 starting spots at once, right? Or, at least, opposing defenses won't send their whole front seven pouring through a couple gaping holes if we ask nicely?

Jaded
08-24-2014, 01:50 PM
It's not like Denver has 2 All-Pro OL and 3 stiffs, if that's your argument you can save it, the point is you can't have 5 All-Pro lineman. Although, if any team could pull that off the Broncos would be on the short list of possible teams...considering they already have 2 All-Pro OL.

Schwartz and Asomoa can suck a fart with a side of weak sauce.

Joel
08-26-2014, 06:44 AM
It's not like Denver has 2 All-Pro OL and 3 stiffs, if that's your argument you can save it, the point is you can't have 5 All-Pro lineman. Although, if any team could pull that off the Broncos would be on the short list of possible teams...considering they already have 2 All-Pro OL.
Just because Fox called Clark the NFLs best BACKUP doesn't prove him a good STARTER (even if one thinks Fox knows his offense from a hole in the ground.) Nor that Franklin's any better at a spot he hasn't played since college than he was at the spot Clark won. After his awful 2012 at G, Ramirez was a nice surprise at C, but still inconsistent, and I still think he lacks the strength to play inside, especialy since Vasquez is more agile pass blocker than forceful run blocker. Plus Ramirez scored the SBs first points by sending its first SNAP past Manning to our end zone.

We don't KNOW what Clark or Franklin are. But we know Asamoah and Schwartz are both stud guards in their prime, the latter a far more reliable G with starting OT experience than Franklin.

Well, we go to the war with the army we've got, not the army we could've had. Now I think, I promised you the last word on the topic since it's not the THREADS topic; my apologies for reneging, and you get the final comment if you want it (really this time.)

Jaded
08-27-2014, 12:09 AM
If you don't have faith in Denver's OL maybe you should come up with some complex algorithm/rating system to make them look better, that is if you don't like the mental gymnastics that PFF and FO has done for you.

It amazes me the effort you put into propping up hacks but then stubbornly refuse to budge on players that have actually earned a job in professional football.

And again, Schwartz and Asamoah are not "studs", Vasquez is a "stud", Saints G's are studs. I...am a stud.