2009 NFL Off Season Thread

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by browna

Hmmm..Tony Dungy back to TB?

Given this somewhat out of left field, Malcom Glazer must have someone specific in mind to fill those positions that can't wait another couple weeks.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3839578

[Sainters7]

Rams GM Bill Devaney just said on Sirius NFL radio that Steve Spagnolo is "dotting the I's and crossing the T's" on a contract, and should be announced as the Rams within a couple hours.

I'm actually a little surprised, I thought he'd sign with the Jets and save himself a move.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Bucs are going to go with Raheem Morris.

[PIMking]

It looks like KC will keep the worm Herm. dang it.

[moon]

That is a terrible rule.

Holmes clearly caught that ball and having the ground cause the incompletion is ######ed.

I expect that crap in the CFL but you would think that the NFL would be better than that.

[Hustle]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Rams GM Bill Devaney just said on Sirius NFL radio that Steve Spagnolo is "dotting the I's and crossing the T's" on a contract, and should be announced as the Rams within a couple hours.

I'm actually a little surprised, I thought he'd sign with the Jets and save himself a move.

On that note, it appears that Rex Ryan is taking the Jets job. Rumored 4 year deal.

As a Ravens fan... I wish him good luck. He'll be missed.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by moon

That is a terrible rule.

Holmes clearly caught that ball and having the ground cause the incompletion is ######ed.

I expect that crap in the CFL but you would think that the NFL would be better than that.

It really makes you wonder, when is a catch a catch? Personally I thought it was a catch the ground can not cause a fumble. How could the ref interpret that differently?

[burn_baby_burn]

ESPN story on the real Marvin Harrison of North Philly.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3827402

[Pagal4321]

Originally Posted by moon

That is a terrible rule.

Holmes clearly caught that ball and having the ground cause the incompletion is ######ed.

Hasn't this always been the case? If you are falling to the ground, you have to maintain control until you are ruled down.

Don't see anything ######ed about it.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

Hasn't this always been the case? If you are falling to the ground, you have to maintain control until you are ruled down.

Don't see anything ######ed about it.

But the ground can not cause a fumble. So if you catch a ball in mid flight, and ball hits the ground first and comes out. Didn't the ground cause that? Obviously there is some misinterpretation along the way somewhere. This never use to be an issue until the 1999 NFC championship game.

[Sainters7]

^^^
I may be wrong, but I thought they changed that rule just before this year. Isn't it now that you have to maintain possession even after hitting the ground(including the ball)? I'm not big on that rule, but if that is the case, they made the right call on the Holmes incompletion.

EDIT: Nevermind, I had to re-read your post, you're saying that the ground can cause a fumble/incompletion. This wasn't always the case though was it? I think its a new rule just from this year.

[Pagal4321]

But they aren't looking at afumble, they were looking at control (re: Holmes). Had he caught it, maintained poessesion and then fell to the ground, and the ground caused the ball to pop out, it would have been down by contact. But in this case, he was hitting the ground as he started to maintain posession, and the ground caused him to lose posession.

In typing that all out, they two rules somewhat contradict the other. But I agreed with the call on the Holmes incompletion.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

ESPN story on the real Marvin Harrison of North Philly.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3827402

Sounds exactly like a couple of guys I've encountered during my time working the 17th street corridor in NE Wichita.

Only they aren't football stars.

[Sylvanfan]

Didn't they have the same thing with Vincent Jackson last week? He caught the ball and had full control of it in the air, his hands hit the ground and the ball came loose. But since he never got his feet down, or any other part of his body first to make a football move and establish possession he never really had possession of the ball by the rule.

I think the rule is okay as is. If a receiver lays out for the ball you better hold on, or try to get your toes to the turf first. It's not like passing numbers are at an all time low or anything that they need to make things easier for the passing game.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Pagal4321

But they aren't looking at afumble, they were looking at control (re: Holmes). Had he caught it, maintained poessesion and then fell to the ground, and the ground caused the ball to pop out, it would have been down by contact. But in this case, he was hitting the ground as he started to maintain posession, and the ground caused him to lose posession.

In typing that all out, they two rules somewhat contradict the other. But I agreed with the call on the Holmes incompletion.

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I think the rule is okay as is. If a receiver lays out for the ball you better hold on, or try to get your toes to the turf first. It's not like passing numbers are at an all time low or anything that they need to make things easier for the passing game.

I would agree if that were the case but Holmes clearly had control, took a few steps and then stretched out to reach the end zone.

Had clearly had possession of the ball before going to the ground and had already established control.

The ground didn't cause him to lose control it caused him to fumble after he already clearly had control of the ball.

[burn_baby_burn]

It seems with a play like that, one official will call it a catch, another will call it incomplete. You have experienced play by play and color commentators saying one thing and then the ref will come out and call it the opposite (not just talking about the play in question, but similiar plays all season).

[Bobblehead]

So how would Linehan go through 2 interviews, then turn down the SF OC position when it was offered?

Isn't that something he could have mentioned at the first interview? Wouldn't he have wondered why they were calling him back a second time?

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So how would Linehan go through 2 interviews, then turn down the SF OC position when it was offered?

Isn't that something he could have mentioned at the first interview? Wouldn't he have wondered why they were calling him back a second time?

Maybe something turned him off during the second interview. Maybe something better has come up, or he figures something better is going to come up.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

Maybe something turned him off during the second interview. Maybe something better has come up, or he figures something better is going to come up.

So you think he may be trying for the Bucs job?

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So you think he may be trying for the Bucs job?

I have absolutely no idea. Just saying something could have made him change his mind during the second interview.

I'm really starting to wonder what is happening in KC. Herm Edwards and his coaching staff are not at the Senior Bowl, which should indicate that they are going to be let go. Still who from the Chiefs is going to the Senior Bowl? When Pioli was first hired I assumed he would can Herm immediately. Then through the weekend I figured they must be keeping him. Now I don't know what the heck is going on.