Jump to content

Random NFL comments/thoughts


RedRamage

Recommended Posts

Part of me wonders if Rodgers is just trolling. The medicated enema last season, the darkness retreat now.... I would respect him so much more if after he retires he comes out and says "I was in the Bahamas that whole time just escaping the media and y'all fell for that schtick hook, line, and sinker."

Given he's an anti-vaxxer though, I seriously doubt it. He's just a stupid diva who probably actually thinks this nonsense helps. I would not want him on my team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

 

 

As ridiculous as it sounds this is probably accurate. Officiating was the wild west just 20-30 years ago. It was daddy ball and who you knew that got you a job, and there were no real performance standards. Nepotism is still there to a degree, but they at least care more about fitness, ability, and performance now than they did back then.

What's really changed is technology. Twenty years ago the refs were marginally worse, but technology wasn't quite there yet to tell us just how good or bad some of those calls were. Technology has far surpassed where the human eye will ever be able to go, and is only still getting better. Take Devonte Smith's no-catch for instance. It's not even fair to criticize the official for not getting that right. He was five yards away, yet he literally cannot see through Smith to see the ball briefly hit the ground as Smith hits the ground. Slow it down and view it from the angles that took the NFL way too long to get, and it's clearly incomplete, but I'm not going to crucify a ref for not getting that right when he did everything right, and just didn't have the angle.

Don't get me wrong, it could absolutely get better, and I do think having the Referee of each crew be full-time NFL employees would help. But with the nature of football, you're never going to get to a point where a robot is calling holding or pass interference or roughing the passer. Those are just judgment calls where some refs are going to get it when it's meh, some are going to get it when it's bad, some are going to get it when it's BAD, and some aren't going to get it unless it's attempted murder. As much as you try to make it objective, most fouls just aren't. And then there will be always be some straight misses.

At some point you have to draw the line of how far you want technology to take the game. Personally, I think the line has already been passed. Focus on the human element and getting the best possible officials in those roles, and then let the human element mean something, as shitty as that is for the Lions oftentimes. I don't want four-hour games while we spend five minute reviews on how much contact was made between the WR and the DB on a particular route, or even two minutes on whether something was a catch. If you can't tell in 30-60 seconds, cut the replay feed and the call stands, let's play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2023 at 11:28 PM, MichiganCardinal said:

. If you can't tell in 30-60 seconds, cut the replay feed and the call stands, let's play.

I'd give it 90 seconds, but if it was that close that looking at it for 90 seconds doesn't change it, then it's not clear evidence. 

And no New York.   You hire a retired referee and a tech expert and put them in each stadium and make sure that neither one of them has any ties to the teams playing.   Whistle blows, clock starts,  if there are technical glitches, well, too bad.   Lots of historic games were decided on close or bad calls.   It's the human element.  

Even the idea of a retired ref brings me pause, because I don't think they want to make their referee friends look bad, but they do have the credibility and they know the rules (hopefully).   You only need 16 of 'em.   

Edited by Motor City Sonics
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would any of the recent officiating and instant replay changes have effected the Lions in a postitive manner anytime in recent memory when they were jobbed by the refs? The battled ball in Seattle, 10 second runoff against Atlanta, the Brandon Pettigrew picked up flag, Dez Bryant running onto the field to scream at an official without his helmet on, Calvin and the process of the catch, Devin Taylor's "facemask" on Aaron Rodgers resulting in a free play, Jim Schwartz errant use of the challenge flag, Demarius Thomas' fumble that was ruled down, Justin Forsett down by contact but scores a TD anyways?

Edited by Mr.TaterSalad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

I'd give it 90 seconds, but if it was that close that looking at it for 90 seconds doesn't change it, then it's not clear evidence. 

And no New York.   You hire a retired referee and a tech expert and put them in each stadium and make sure that neither one of them has any ties to the teams playing.   Whistle blows, clock starts,  if there are technical glitches, well, too bad.   Lots of historic games were decided on close or bad calls.   It's the human element.  

Even the idea of a retired ref brings me pause, because I don't think they want to make their referee friends look bad, but they do have the credibility and they know the rules (hopefully).   You only need 16 of 'em.   

I think having it in a central location is at least supposed to limit the danger of having ties to either team as well as not wanting to make referee friends look bad, so I don't mind having it reviewed in a central location.

I also don't agree with the "human element" idea of officiating a game.  The human element that I want to see is the players, not the enforcement of the rules.  I don't want the enforcement to be subjective.  I don't want a game to go to a situation where people think a potentially questionable holding call (ya know... just grabbing a random example) decided a game. I would be 100% on board with using whatever tech we have to ensure that calls get made correctly 100% of the time...

...as long as it doesn't interfere with the game too much.  And of course that's the key.  We can't run a play, then take 10 minutes to analyze each and every action to see if a rule was broken.  The game can't have long breaks like that so we need to do the best we can in limited time. 

All of this said, I agree with the 90 second idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedRamage said:

I think having it in a central location is at least supposed to limit the danger of having ties to either team as well as not wanting to make referee friends look bad, so I don't mind having it reviewed in a central location.

I also don't agree with the "human element" idea of officiating a game.  The human element that I want to see is the players, not the enforcement of the rules.  I don't want the enforcement to be subjective.  I don't want a game to go to a situation where people think a potentially questionable holding call (ya know... just grabbing a random example) decided a game. I would be 100% on board with using whatever tech we have to ensure that calls get made correctly 100% of the time...

...as long as it doesn't interfere with the game too much.  And of course that's the key.  We can't run a play, then take 10 minutes to analyze each and every action to see if a rule was broken.  The game can't have long breaks like that so we need to do the best we can in limited time. 

All of this said, I agree with the 90 second idea.

Well, I think of the Browns game where the Browns knew a call might get overturned and rushed to get the next play off, which they did and then the NFL went backwards two plays and overturned it.  They cited there was a communication delay with the replay officials in NY.    To me, that was a bunch of B.S..   The communication delay was not the Browns fault, therefore they should not pay the price.      That was when Browns fans went nuts and started chucking things on the field and they ended the game early, only to bring everyone back on for a meaningless kneel down.    Take the delay out, put people at the stadiums.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Well, I think of the Browns game where the Browns knew a call might get overturned and rushed to get the next play off, which they did and then the NFL went backwards two plays and overturned it.  They cited there was a communication delay with the replay officials in NY.    To me, that was a bunch of B.S..   The communication delay was not the Browns fault, therefore they should not pay the price.      That was when Browns fans went nuts and started chucking things on the field and they ended the game early, only to bring everyone back on for a meaningless kneel down.    Take the delay out, put people at the stadiums.  

Ah, okay.  I see what you're saying.  Imho this would fall under the 'technical issues' you cited earlier and should not have been allowed.  Again, ideally we always get the right answer but not at the cost of an unwatchable product.

Again, just my opinion but I think the times actual technical issues come into play are so low that I prefer the "anonymity" (and therefore hopefully less danger of bias) that central reviewing provides.  I would like to see it codified that technical issues can not override the next snap, but I'd also like to see that coaches be allowed to challenge in the final two minutes.  I'm fine with officials being able to review in the final two minutes, but I dislike that coaches can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Final  Yahoo Power Rankings have the Lions at #6 !   Wow.  

Were Power rankings around when the Lions went to the Conference Championship game? If not that may be the highest final ranking they have ever gotten by anybody. Hell you could probably count on 2 or possibly even 1 hand how many times they were ranked higher than that at any point during the season before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article today about Bieniemy not getting a job and maybe never getting a job.     You guys know how much I complain about Black coaches not being given many Head Coaching chances and then when they get them, they aren't given any room, 3 of them recently fired after just one season when they took over horrible teams that everyone knew were horrible teams.   And Steve Wilkes got screwed in Carolina.   Twice it's happened to him.     But Bienemy has two problems.  He does not call the plays in KC, so he's not a full coordinator and he has an ugly legal past.   Not saying he can't change, he is older now, but are you going to put your billion-dollar organization in the hands of someone with a well-known temper problem?   I don't think so.    

He might get the Chiefs gig if Andy Reid retires (which I think he will).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebuilds can happen fast in the NFL but the Bears seem like they are atleast a couple seasons away from being legit so it may be in their best interest to see what they can get for Fields and start fresh with a Bryce Young this year. 

If you're not going to be good for another couple seasons now Fields is in year 4 or 5 and is going to expensive, on top of that you added another 2 to 3 years of punishment on his body. You don't want him to start breaking down right when you're ready to take that next step forward. 

Edited by RandyMarsh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...