The NFL needs to look at receiver gloves

[DFWJC]

If that is the best catch you have ever seen.....then you don't watch alot of football

I so agree...or at least as good, since it's always an eye of the beholder thing.

 

[BHendri5]

What we call him is "another hamstring pull waiting to happen".

well hell if he has another hamstring pull and repeats what he did this past season, I'll say keep having the hamstring pulls. I just wished he had been still on the board when we picked at 16. I will always back my family, even if they are not playing with the boyz.
He will be torching our secondary until he retires or moves out of the conference. As I told him I will always root for him to do well, but everytime they play us he has to go home with an L. He can have over 200 yds in receptions, I'll just say no one can cover him. but one man can not win a football game for you, it is the ultimate team sport, but one man can lose the game for you.
fella, I have been a Cowboys fan for 49yrs and counting. You are not going to get me into a useless back and forth with you about my kinfolk, I already know the NFL has no one that can cover him.

 

[Nightman]

You seem to be implying that better catches are so routine someone who watches a lot of football would readily identify such catches.

Since you watch so much football, can you cite a few catches that were better than Odell Beckham's catch?

Thanks.

I've seen some dumb posts around here, but his was one the dumberest.

That was easily one the best catches in the history of football.

 

[JDSmith]

What's hard to figure out is why you're trying to minimize the catch just because it wasn't done with bare hands.

What's hard to figure out is why you're so bent out of shape because many think it was an impressive catch.

You are obviously confused. I did nothing to minimize the catch, it was a phenominal catch, and maybe the best I have seen. I merely pointed out that people were attacking the op based on their own lack of reading comprehension.

It is also interesting that you concluded that I was bent out of shape based on three messages with a total of twenty or so words. I think you might be projecting.

 

[JDSmith]

I've seen some dumb posts around here, but his was one the dumberest.

That was easily one the best catches in the history of football.

You aren't taking anything Floaty says seriously, are you? He's been trolling Cowboys boards for over a decade, I haven't listened to a word he's said since he was Floatyworm on The Ranch.

 

[tyke1doe]

You are obviously confused. I did nothing to minimize the catch, it was a phenominal catch, and maybe the best I have seen. I merely pointed out that people were attacking the op based on their own lack of reading comprehension.

What???

First, you responded to MY post. I wasn't really talking about or to the OP insomuch as I was addressing those who say ODB's catch wasn't impressive or as impressive.

Second, your response was that it is not as impressive. As impressive is a phrase that reflects comparison. So I simply asked what is more impressive.

Third, you say the comparison is catching with gloves vs. catching without gloves. So if a player makes a routine catch without gloves, that catch is better than ODB's catch?

Fourth, now you're saying that it is maybe the greatest catch you've ever seen. But you just said it's not as impressive as catching without gloves. So can you kindly offer an example of a better or more impressive catch sans gloves?

It is also interesting that you concluded that I was bent out of shape based on three messages with a total of twenty or so words. I think you might be projecting.

Huh?
What does word length have to do with anything other than I like to follow up my comments with sound logic?

 

[Sasquatch]

Sorry, Dez, but I'm about to attack your craft.

If you haven't had a chance to play catch with today's receiver gloves, I highly recommend it. I had a chance the other day with some young'uns I know. At my age, playing football isn't really in the itinerary anymore, but one of these kids had some and let me try them out.

Let's just say, afterward you won't be nearly as impressed with Odell Beckham's catch, or any other one-handed grab for that matter. These things are incredibly sticky, like stickum times ten. If you have big hands, a one-handed grab with these gloves is not a big deal at all. I have average hands, and I was pulling them down with ease.

I think the NFL needs to look at this. We've been talking a lot lately about the air pressure in the football, and how it makes it easier to hang on to the football. These gloves have a much more pronounced effect in that regard.

Shame on any NFL receiver for dropping a well-thrown ball with these insta-catch contraptions.

I realize the defenders can wear them, too, and I know the league wants offense, but I prefer the purer days when receivers just taped up their fingers like Pearson and Novacek. Even the early 90s gloves had nowhere near this much stickiness, and a lot of receiver refused to wear them. I can't imagine any receiver not wanting to wear these gloves today because they're a huge advantage.

And there's my old fart rant for the day.

Back in my day ...

I actually agree with your sentiment.

 

[MapleLeaf]

I don't believe many who are posting have even worn or tested today's gloves worn by NFL players.

There is a standard marketing test used to sell these items to equipment mgrs in football programs around N.A..

With a standard pair of Cutters you can hold a football from the pointy end with only your thumb and pinky finger. My son can actually hold the ball about two inches from the end of the point this way.

Without these gloves the friction co-efficient of your hands goes down. They improve the outcome on the attempt to catch the ball.

If they didn't why would players wear them and switch multiple pairs of them during a game? Because they like them as a fashion statement? Highly unlikely! They wear them because they work, and more catches means more money.

BTW, Cutters who were the first company to enter the business developed the thin elastomer-polymer gloves for the glass installers industry. As mechanical suction cups became the handling standard they needed another market to go to. In the late 70s and early 80s in the CFL many receivers up here were wearing glass cutters gloves duct taped at the wrists and making catches in the sun, rain and snow they otherwise wouldn't have made.

http://www.stack.com/video/1685994704/the-history-of-cutters-gloves/

Picture of Don Narcisse with glass cutter gloves and white sports tape fastening around the wrists.

http://cfl.uploads.mrx.ca/league/images/en/newser/2010/02/Don_Narcisse_CFHOF_10225.jpg

 

[erod]

well hell if he has another hamstring pull and repeats what he did this past season, I'll say keep having the hamstring pulls. I just wished he had been still on the board when we picked at 16. I will always back my family, even if they are not playing with the boyz.
He will be torching our secondary until he retires or moves out of the conference. As I told him I will always root for him to do well, but everytime they play us he has to go home with an L. He can have over 200 yds in receptions, I'll just say no one can cover him. but one man can not win a football game for you, it is the ultimate team sport, but one man can lose the game for you.
fella, I have been a Cowboys fan for 49yrs and counting. You are not going to get me into a useless back and forth with you about my kinfolk, I already know the NFL has no one that can cover him.

No doubt, he's good. Really good. But the league always has a collection of good wide receivers, and they don't win championships for teams.

Who were the great wide receivers in the Super Bowl last year? Julian Edelman? He was probably the best one in the game.

Meanwhile, how many rings between Calvin Johnson, AJ Green, Julio Jones, Dez Bryant, Larry Fitzgerald, etc, etc, etc.

 

[JDSmith]

What???

First, you responded to MY post. I wasn't really talking about or to the OP insomuch as I was addressing those who say ODB's catch wasn't impressive or as impressive.

Second, your response was that it is not as impressive. As impressive is a phrase that reflects comparison. So I simply asked what is more impressive.

Third, you say the comparison is catching with gloves vs. catching without gloves. So if a player makes a routine catch without gloves, that catch is better than ODB's catch?

Fourth, now you're saying that it is maybe the greatest catch you've ever seen. But you just said it's not as impressive as catching without gloves. So can you kindly offer an example of a better or more impressive catch sans gloves?




Huh?
What does word length have to do with anything other than I like to follow up my comments with sound logic?

To use your own analogy from earlier, squatting a thousand pounds geared is not as impressive as squatting a thousand pounds raw. Squatting two hundred pounds geared is not as impressive as squatting two hundred pounds raw.

That's it, it is nothing more than saying that doing something with an aid is less impressive than doing so without. The action in question can be mundane or awe inspiring and it makes no difference to the comparison.

For me to say definitively that a catch was more impressive I'd have to see a similar catch without gloves. The catch was phenomenal. But you and a number of other people have taken issue with anyone saying that it's not as impressive as if he'd done it without gloves.

For your third point... nobody, as far as I've seen, has said or implied that a routine catch sans gloves even remotely compares to that catch. You are the first person to even bring that up. That would be akin to suggesting that the raw two hundred pound squat is as impressive as the thousand pound geared squat, and that's just silly.

Finally, since you claim to be a fan of logic, go read my posts here and then come back and explain how anyone could logically conclude that I was minimizing the catch or bent out of shape about it based upon what I've written.

 

[Doomsday101]

Only thing NFL needs to look at is what constitutes a catch, less concern over gloves more concern over what is a catch.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I got a better shot at the obj catch than the acrobatic clutch baller *** catches dez makes

 

[tyke1doe]

To use your own analogy from earlier, squatting a thousand pounds geared is not as impressive as squatting a thousand pounds raw. Squatting two hundred pounds geared is not as impressive as squatting two hundred pounds raw.

To continue with the analogy, show me the man squatting 1,000 pounds raw. Show me or cite to me the player catching the ball with three fingers without gloves.

That's it, it is nothing more than saying that doing something with an aid is less impressive than doing so without. The action in question can be mundane or awe inspiring and it makes no difference to the comparison.

To you, maybe. But not to others. So whose standard are we using and if just yours, then why would you need to imply we shouldn't be making a big deal of ODB's catch?
To me and many others, ODB catching the ball with three fingers with gloves is far more impressive than A.J. Green catching a routine ball without gloves.

NOW ... if you have an example of A.J. Green or Dez catching a ball gloveless with three fingers, falling backwards as they catch it, I will agree with you.
But you're making a rhetorical argument with no substance to back it up.

For me to say definitively that a catch was more impressive I'd have to see a similar catch without gloves. The catch was phenomenal. But you and a number of other people have taken issue with anyone saying that it's not as impressive as if he'd done it without gloves.

LOL! You're introducing facts not in evidence. We're not making the comparison that it would have been more impressive if he had caught it without gloves. YOU ARE!!!
We're not engaging in hypotheticals. YOU ARE!!!
So not only have you NOT given an example of a more impressive catch, you've reached into the hypothetical to offer "Well, it wasn't as impressive as if he had done it without gloves."

For your third point... nobody, as far as I've seen, has said or implied that a routine catch sans gloves even remotely compares to that catch. You are the first person to even bring that up. That would be akin to suggesting that the raw two hundred pound squat is as impressive as the thousand pound geared squat, and that's just silly.

You apparently don't understand the concept of implications. Let me explain it to you.
When you offer that ODB's catch isn't as impressive as catching it without gloves and you don't give any examples of a catch without gloves, you are effectively implying that a catch without gloves is MORE IMPRESSIVE.
Your failure to give an answer defines the context. The only statement you've given is that ODB's catch isn't as impressive as one without gloves. So the only conclusion to be reached is that you're referring to any catch without gloves.
These are facts of logic, my friend.

Finally, since you claim to be a fan of logic, go read my posts here and then come back and explain how anyone could logically conclude that I was minimizing the catch or bent out of shape about it based upon what I've written.

Concept of implication, my friend. Either that or you were just making a hypothetical statement with no actual evidence. Or, more simply put, you have no real examples of a more impressive or as impressive catch sans gloves and are arguing just to be arguing.

 

[maxdallasfan]

I say go old school and ban gloves.

 

[Ferrumz]

To continue with the analogy, show me the man squatting 1,000 pounds raw. Show me or cite to me the player catching the ball with three fingers without gloves.



To you, maybe. But not to others. So whose standard are we using and if just yours, then why would you need to imply we shouldn't be making a big deal of ODB's catch?
To me and many others, ODB catching the ball with three fingers with gloves is far more impressive than A.J. Green catching a routine ball without gloves.

NOW ... if you have an example of A.J. Green or Dez catching a ball gloveless with three fingers, falling backwards as they catch it, I will agree with you.
But you're making a rhetorical argument with no substance to back it up.



LOL! You're introducing facts not in evidence. We're not making the comparison that it would have been more impressive if he had caught it without gloves. YOU ARE!!!
We're not engaging in hypotheticals. YOU ARE!!!
So not only have you NOT given an example of a more impressive catch, you've reached into the hypothetical to offer "Well, it wasn't as impressive as if he had done it without gloves."



You apparently don't understand the concept of implications. Let me explain it to you.
When you offer that ODB's catch isn't as impressive as catching it without gloves and you don't give any examples of a catch without gloves, you are effectively implying that a catch without gloves is MORE IMPRESSIVE.
Your failure to give an answer defines the context. The only statement you've given is that ODB's catch isn't as impressive as one without gloves. So the only conclusion to be reached is that you're referring to any catch without gloves.
These are facts of logic, my friend.



Concept of implication, my friend. Either that or you were just making a hypothetical statement with no actual evidence. Or, more simply put, you have no real examples of a more impressive or as impressive catch sans gloves and are arguing just to be arguing.

If you can't understand the simple concept that doing something with no assistance is more impressive than doing something with no assistance then you're beyond help.

If a student takes a math test and gets an A without using a calculator and another has to use a calculator but still gets an A. What's the more impressive feat? Any logical person will say that the kid that got an A without using a calculator is more impressive.

Odell's catch was impressive but it would have been more impressive had he done it without the gloves because they provided a huge assistance in the catch. Perhaps the reason we haven't seen catches like his in the past is that receivers haven't been wearing these new gloves for very long. I believe they've only been around for 3 or so years. Consequently there is nothing to compare his catch too...yet.
And nowhere anywhere in this thread has anyone compared his catch to a routine catch by a third string receiver. Why you keep bringing that up is beyond me.

 

[Ferrumz]

That first line was supposed to read doing something with no assistance as opposed to doing something with assistance. Apparently I can't edit it now.

 

[tyke1doe]

If you can't understand the simple concept that doing something with no assistance is more impressive than doing something with no assistance then you're beyond help.

Well, if I can't understand it, why are you responding?
You just wanted to jump into an argument. That's all.

If a student takes a math test and gets an A without using a calculator and another has to use a calculator but still gets an A. What's the more impressive feat? Any logical person will say that the kid that got an A without using a calculator is more impressive.

You see the flaw in your argument don't you? You have an actual kid making an A without a calculator.
Sans that, the kid who makes an A with a calculator is more impressive UNTIL a kid comes along and makes an A without a calculator.

So my question to you, since you decided to enter this conversation, is show me the kid who makes an A without a calculator, or in this case, show me the player who catches the ball with three fingers sans gloves.

Why you can't understand THAT simple concept is because you are arguing simply to argue.

Odell's catch was impressive but it would have been more impressive had he done it without the gloves because they provided a huge assistance in the catch. Perhaps the reason we haven't seen catches like his in the past is that receivers haven't been wearing these new gloves for very long. I believe they've only been around for 3 or so years. Consequently there is nothing to compare his catch too...yet.

Exactly!!!! So why are you arguing a hypothetical with an actual? Haven't you learned that an actual ALWAYS trumps a hypothetical.
Your argument is contingent upon a hypothetical situation, i.e., some imaginary receiver who catches a ball with three finger tips sans gloves.

It's like saying a stallion isn't as impressive an equine as a unicorn, yet you've only seen one in your imagination.

And nowhere anywhere in this thread has anyone compared his catch to a routine catch by a third string receiver. Why you keep bringing that up is beyond me.

Of course, it's beyond you. You're the one comparing hypotheticals with actuals.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Perhaps the reason we haven't seen catches like his in the past is that receivers haven't been wearing these new gloves for very long. I believe they've only been around for 3 or so years.

The gloves have been in the league for at least 10 years. They are not new.

 

[Ferrumz]

http://www.complex.com/sneakers/2013/08/testing-out-the-stickiest-football-glove

Look at that article and those pics and then try and hold a football in the same fashion bare handed. You simply can't.

Ignoring that the gloves were the biggest factor in Odell making that catch is just shortsighted.

 

[tyke1doe]

So what if they were the biggest factor?
It's not like we see guys wearing gloves catching the ball with three fingers.
And we definitely don't see guys with no gloves catching the ball with three fingers.
So given the real data and the only sampling we have of players catching balls with or without gloves, we're left with ODB's catch being one of the most, if not the most, amazing catch many of us have ever scene.