1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Patriots @ Panthers. Monday Night Game

Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by dupree89, Nov 18, 2013.

  1. khiladi

    khiladi Well-Known Member

    12,322 Messages
    2,214 Likes Received
    It's not hard.. PI is only called if the ball is ruled catcheable.

    Further, the fact that you think this link yu provided is scientific is laughable and shows how gullible you must be if your taking this ESPN analysis as in any way adequate. So let us, for the sake of argument, assume their timing which is just laughable to be accurate..

    "Amazingly", they forget to take the acceleration of Gronk's 8 foot 3 reach into account, meaning they just take the time to decelerate and stop. Gronk not only has to stop, he has to change his direction and extend his body in the opposite direction to make a play for the ball after slowing down full speed at 16 miles per hour per their claim how many seconds does our "ESPN" Patriot love fest drama say that takes? Oh yeah, they conveniently neglect that fact... I also am assuming that Gronk can't lay out fully, because our resident friendly LB was already in the path of the ball and wasn't even touching him when the ball was released, meaning our buddy Gronk would have to contend not just with 38, but the LB... So even their 8 foot 3 reach is utterly dumb...

    The fact that you quoted such a dumb rationalization tells me all I need to know.. BTW, even your ESPN science calls it 'restrictive'.. Love your 'bear hug' claim...
  2. Rogah

    Rogah Well-Known Member

    3,839 Messages
    116 Likes Received
    Hmmmm let's see... on one hand we have ESPN Sport Science.... on the other we have some anonymous yahoo Patriot hater on the internet...... You keep bringing up the LB in the path of the ball. Right there that shows your ignorance because his placement is 100% irrelevant.

    Ya I'm going with ESPN Sports Science on that one. Now since you're so obsessed with having the last word and showing us all how you have no clue, have at it........
  3. khiladi

    khiladi Well-Known Member

    12,322 Messages
    2,214 Likes Received
    Yes, maybe ESPN Sports Science should publish their article for a scholary journal, where it will be peer-reviewed, because it's so powerful in it's argmentation...

    I guess ESPN Boston is a place where science is 100% accurate and not just meant to stir the pot in NE territory...

    [IMG]
  4. ChldsPlay

    ChldsPlay Well-Known Member

    6,381 Messages
    461 Likes Received
    Wow...yeah, that was awful science. They should be pretty ashamed about that one. A lot of piss poor assumptions made.
  5. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    21,878 Messages
    1,478 Likes Received
    I never thought you were making stuff up, but when you cite the wrong player it appears that you just didn't pay close enough attention to the details. Those details matter. I disagree that this particular pass was 100% uncatchable. It may only be 1% catchable, but that is still greater than 0% and I think it has to be 0% for them to pick up a flag. There are plenty of instances when it is 0% uncatchable and it doesn't have to sail 500 ft over the players for it to be so. There was a #58 LB in the area coming from the right side of the defense and if he had picked off the pass or knocked it down at the 2 or 3 yard line then I would say that it was 0% uncatchable. Different situation.

    Even if pass interference was called and the Pats got the ball at the 1 yard line there was no guarantee they convert a TD and win. Winning and losing didn't matter to me. The two teams in question didn't matter to me. The time of the game at which it occurred didn't matter to me. I just want the correct calls to be made. This was the wrong call. And the excuses being made to support it are more annoying than the call being wrong.
  6. Rogah

    Rogah Well-Known Member

    3,839 Messages
    116 Likes Received
    I don't understand why I seem to be the only one in this forum who was rooting for the Patriots. Am I the only one who realizes that the Panthers and the Cowboys are both fighting for Wild Card positioning right now and we would be better off had they lost?
  7. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    21,878 Messages
    1,478 Likes Received
    With respect to the call I didn't care who won or lost. If it had been the Panthers on offense and didn't get the call I would feel the same way. With respect to the Cowboys, yes I would have preferred that the Panthers lost. I just don't let that sway my opinion on whether I thought it was a good or bad call.
  8. visionary

    visionary Well-Known Member

    7,844 Messages
    2,326 Likes Received

    my apologies but if you think the cowboys are fighting for anything after watching the saints game, you are mistaken
  9. khiladi

    khiladi Well-Known Member

    12,322 Messages
    2,214 Likes Received
    Apologies for the harsh tone in this thread, that could be construed as 'personal mocking'.
  10. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    31,878 Messages
    7,607 Likes Received
    I suppose you're right, but I have a hard time thinking WC positioning is going to help us much if we can't win the division outright. It's hardly even a consideration for me.

    I have a harder time rooting for the Pats for any reason, whatsoever. I don't even hate them so much as an organization--have a ton of respect for them, actually--but I don't have it in myself to root for them against any but the teams I really hate (Niners, Steelers, Redskins, Eagles, Giants).
  11. Rogah

    Rogah Well-Known Member

    3,839 Messages
    116 Likes Received
    Yeah, no team has ever been blown out and then bounced back to make the playoffs. Ever. In the history of the NFL. It's never happened.
    Lodeus likes this.

Share This Page