Packers/Eagles Game

[cowboys69fan]

Grinning from ear to ear, thank you Pack and Aaron for deflating and grounding that Green Turd bird, they didn't look so good after all when they faced a formidable opponent, it's all about match ups in the NFL just like with the Pack, Got news for them, their gonna have a Hell of a time with our team too!

 

[Idgit]

I think that's fair. I'm anxious to see what happens to Detroit, though, particularly with the New England matchup on the horizon. I think they could be a tam with the arrow pointing downward.

They've got a tough row to hoe.

I'm not a fan of rank-ordering teams, because so much of it is how teams matchup physically, and that depends on who you have to play in the playoffs. DET I don't think is as good a team as some in the NFC, but they and AZ match up pretty well against Dallas. Conversely, I think we match up well against PHI and GB.

Right now, I think you have to say GB and AZ look like the top two teams in the NFC. I'd say the Cowboys (with Romo) and, until today, the Eagles both had reason to be considered in that group. I guess we'll see for sure on Thanksgiving. The Lions I'd say are close, too. It's pretty impressive that they've kept winning with some of the time their key personnel has missed.

 

[jobberone]

I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. If so, we'd see players on the punt unit treating it like a pass reception, where they just had to make sure of possession before falling into the end zone. There would be no reason to try to keep the ball out of the end zone, if all you had to do was possess it before it crossed the goal line.

Touching the ball doesn't provide possession. You see guys trying to propel the ball back onto the field of play. That's touching it. A member of the kicking team holding it on the field of play long enough to have possession means the play is dead.

I agree you don't see the play being called that way. Generally that is called a touchback and that's what I would have called just for the sake of argument.

 

[jobberone]

I would put GB and AZ in the top tier followed closely by Dallas then Det and Philly. I agree with @Idgit in that its always been matchups in the NFL and football period. I do like Detroits defense but I don't trust Stafford. I don't trust Stanton or Sanchez either. Not counting the South out either. Teams can get hot.

So I'd say GB and Dallas are the likeliest to play in the NFCC game. That's assuming their paths allow that. That's not a prediction as turnovers, injuries and how the ball bounces will play a huge role as well.

 

[theogt]

So how would you rank the NFC teams? The Cardinals have to be #1. I'd say Packers 2, Lions 3 and the Cowboys and Eagles fighting for the 4 spot.

Packers, Cowboys, Cardinals, Lions, Seahawks, 49ers, Eagles

The Cowboys can clearly beat any of those teams, though. There's not a "no brainer" in the NFC this year. But I have to put the Packers on top because they've been hot (albeit against bad teams) recently.

 

[percyhoward]

A member of the kicking team holding it on the field of play long enough to have possession means the play is dead.

I don't think so. I think once the player's momentum carries him into the end zone with the ball, that when the ball crosses the goal line it's a touchback, and I think the player who tosses it back away from the end zone is thinking the same thing.

Otherwise, there's no reason to toss it back. He would just secure the ball and continue into the end zone with possession, and not risk the return of the loose ball. If what you say were true, these plays would look like WR's making sure they get their toes down. There must be a reason they never look like that.

 

[Risen Star]

If I heard it correctly, the Packers are now the first team in NFL history to score at least 28 points in the first half of 4 straight home games.

 

[jobberone]

I don't think so. I think once the player's momentum carries him into the end zone with the ball, that when the ball crosses the goal line it's a touchback, and I think the player who tosses it back away from the end zone is thinking the same thing.

Otherwise, there's no reason to toss it back. He would just secure the ball and continue into the end zone with possession, and not risk the return of the loose ball. If what you say were true, these plays would look like WR's making sure they get their toes down. There must be a reason they never look like that.

That's what I'm saying I'd have done. But IF they thought he reestablished himself in the FOP and took possession of the ball then the play is dead at that point. Momentum doesn't enter into the equation. I think you are looking at the initial part of the play and I'm talking about him reentering the FOP and gaining possession. IF he does both then he can cartwheel into the endzone or whatever mechanism he wishes; it won't matter because the play is over.

 

[percyhoward]

IF they thought he reestablished himself in the FOP and took possession of the ball then the play is dead at that point. Momentum doesn't enter into the equation.

Momentum is what was taking him into the end zone with the ball. The fact that he reestablished himself only meant that it was still a live ball after he touched it.

 

[percyhoward]

 

[jobberone]

Momentum is what was taking him into the end zone with the ball. The fact that he reestablished himself only meant that it was still a live ball after he touched it.

My last on this. Once the player establishes possession then the play is dead. So if he has the ball and he's inbounds then the play is dead and the ball is put in play at that spot.

The problem is they shouldn't have allowed him to come back inbounds (from the end zone) and declare he had possession. He just wasn't inbounds long enough nor is that play called that way AFAIK. You can have the last word.