2018 NFL thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Justin Tucker is probably worth at least one first round pick, definitely the best kicker of all-time. Vinateri has more memorable and bigger moments, but Tucker is just ridiculous considering he's played almost all his games outdoors and in a division known for bad weather.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

He's under contract. He gets paid millions of dollars to play football. That is his job. How is it somehow unreasonable to expect him to play? Idiocy.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He's under contract. He gets paid millions of dollars to play football. That is his job. How is it somehow unreasonable to expect him to play? Idiocy.

Because of stuff like this and the fact that their contracts aren't guaranteed. If the owners can break the contract at any time, with minimal penalties, I have no issues with the players protecting their own futures by sitting out.

This is a league that celebrates front offices which show zero loyalty to players as "shrewd." Why is the same standard not extended to the players?

[savemedrzaius]

Bills offence looked like crap but do those Packers throwback uniforms look like crap or what?

Bills suck again. Gotta beat the Titans next week.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Justin Tucker is probably worth at least one first round pick, definitely the best kicker of all-time. Vinateri has more memorable and bigger moments, but Tucker is just ridiculous considering he's played almost all his games outdoors and in a division known for bad weather.

Ravens know how to find kicking talent that's for sure...Wil Lutz is easily the best, most consistent kicker the Saints have had in my 25 years of Saints fandom (Jon Carney could be erratic, Morten Anderson was before my time), and the only reason they have Lutz is because he was in TC with the Ravens, and John Harbaugh told Payton about him before a pre-season game a couple years ago. Told Payton Lutz is raw but is an absolute stud, but they won't be keeping him obviously because of Justin Tucker. Payton definitely credits Harbaugh for helping the Saints finally solve their endless kicking rotation since Carney left a decade ago.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because of stuff like this and the fact that their contracts aren't guaranteed. If the owners can break the contract at any time, with minimal penalties, I have no issues with the players protecting their own futures by sitting out.

This is a league that celebrates front offices which show zero loyalty to players as "shrewd." Why is the same standard not extended to the players?

The contracts not being guaranteed angle doesn't fly anymore because players are getting up front guaranteed money fully knowing in a lot of cases they will never play out the deals. It's why Bell hasn't got a deal done with the Steelers in that they offered him $33 million guaranteed but he wants $50 million. I believe of all contracts right now we are up to 60% of most of them being guarantees so it's not like these players aren't getting paid because they are.

Thomas is breaking down and he clearly wanted to get to free agency early so he could get a big chunk of guaranteed money knowing he's not likely going to be able to play out his deal. Sucks for him but the Seahawks were within their rights to have him fulfill his contract. Players always have the option of not signing their contracts and move to a different career if they don't like how the NFL operates. Nobody is forcing any of these players to play.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Trout: browns should have gone for it 4th and inches to kill off the game. Defenses stopping no one.

Brutal spot on third down. But, despite showing some great things, it was Baker costing the Browns with his two fumbles. Raiders weren't going anywhere without those. His pick-six interception really wasn't his fault. So many slips and drops caused by that ####ty field.

Yes, the officiating was brutal on Sunday, but...

https://www.cleveland.com/expo/sport...cart_big-photo

The officiating was brutal on Sunday. There's no getting around that.

Not just brutal, but taking-points-off-the-board brutal.

Marshawn Lynch was whistled down on a play where he was never close to down. He turned the corner and broke free and might have been on his way to six.

They whistled Derek Carr down on a fumble that was destined to become a defensive touchdown (we'll get to that).
Then there was the change of the spot on the run that would have clinched the game for the Browns by Carlos Hyde. That decision resurrected the Raiders, who should have watched the Browns run the victory formation a few times before the clock hit zero.

That decision cost the Browns this game. If the first down is upheld, we're framing this game differently.
But ...

That can't overshadow the fact that the Browns, after that overturn, still had two opportunities to keep the Raiders out of the endzone on defense. They didn't. The Raiders scored a touchdown and a two-point conversion to force overtime.

It can't overshadow that this team twice held double digit leads and gave them back.

You have to be able to overcome adversity to win in the NFL, whether you bring it upon yourself in the form of turnovers or it comes from the officials. The Browns scored a touchdown on the drive after the non-fumble. They gave one up after the changed spot.

They should have won for many reasons. They didn't, for many reasons. It goes beyond the miserable performance by the officials.

[Erick Estrada]

The spot was correct. If you watched the game the first official spotted the ball correctly and the official on the other side of the field moved it up. After looking at replay the official put the spot back to the initial spot.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Browns definitely got hosed with a few bad calls yesterday. That said, still pretty weak to not go for it on 4th down, you end the game with a first down.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The spot was correct. If you watched the game the first official spotted the ball correctly and the official on the other side of the field moved it up. After looking at replay the official put the spot back to the initial spot.

I "watched the game" same as you.



http://larrybrownsports.com/football...st-down/466348

The officials reviewed the spot of the ball since it was under two minutes.


“I don’t see any way they can change this call on the field,” FOX rules analyst and former NFL Vice President of Officiating Dean Blandino said on the telecast.


However, the officials decided to overturn their original spot, making it fourth down.


“After reviewing the play, the runner’s elbow was down and the ball was short of the 19-yard line,” the lead official said.


“I wouldn’t have overturned that one,” a stunned Blandino said in response.


That was tough, because nothing on the replays shown by FOX had evidence that was strong enough to overturn the original call on the field.

[Strange Brew]

Even the guy on the receiving end of the finger suggests Thomas should be cut a little slack.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-slack-gesture

[Strange Brew]

Even the guy on the receiving end of the finger suggests Thomas should be cut a little slack.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-slack-gesture

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by troutman

I "watched the game" same as you.



http://larrybrownsports.com/football...st-down/466348

Are you saying there was a conspiracy against the Browns? They were playing the Raiders after all not the Patriots as there's absolutely zero motive to give the Raiders any benefit of the doubt. The NFL has never gone out of their way to give the Raiders anything. As I said before there were two different spots and referee went back to the first spot. Dean Blandano's opinion based on "replays shown by FOX"really doesn't matter and we don't know what view the officials had that maybe TV didn't. Everyone thinks it's funny when the NFL uses a folded index card to give the Cowboys a win over the Raiders but when a call goes their way it's "rigged". Sorry but it was probably the correct spot as I don't see the officials changing that unless they clearly saw evidence.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Are you saying there was a conspiracy against the Browns?

Not at all - if you read my earlier post, the Browns lost the game for a number of other reasons. The officiating was bad for both sides.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

No, he said it was a bad spot, not that there is some conspiracy against the Browns. Referees can make a bad call without having some sinister ulterior motive.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Are you saying there was a conspiracy against the Browns? They were playing the Raiders after all not the Patriots as there's absolutely zero motive to give the Raiders any benefit of the doubt. The NFL has never gone out of their way to give the Raiders anything. As I said before there were two different spots and referee went back to the first spot. Dean Blandano's opinion based on "replays shown by FOX"really doesn't matter and we don't know what view the officials had that maybe TV didn't. Everyone thinks it's funny when the NFL uses a folded index card to give the Cowboys a win over the Raiders but when a call goes their way it's "rigged". Sorry but it was probably the correct spot as I don't see the officials changing that unless they clearly saw evidence.

Which is why people can say rigged and it can't be discredited. If there are "replays we don't even get to see". probably best to just show them. But as the NFL learned from the NBA, it's far better for business for the line to be blurred into thinking you are in fact watching wrestling.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because of stuff like this and the fact that their contracts aren't guaranteed. If the owners can break the contract at any time, with minimal penalties, I have no issues with the players protecting their own futures by sitting out.

This is a league that celebrates front offices which show zero loyalty to players as "shrewd." Why is the same standard not extended to the players?

This isnt a situation where it was about the guarantee was an issue though, and on that they have their weak PA to blame

Earl Thomas was on the last year of his deal, he wanted future assurance with a new deal, the seahawks maybe wanted more information before giving him a long term deal or they couldn't agree on one

They also couldn't find someone to trade for him at how they valued him, although ive seen reports they were lowering their price and he may have been traded this week

I understand Thomas's frustration and have no issue with him airing it, its horrible timing, but they gave him a good contract 5 years ago or whatever it was, i don't think they are in the wrong here. Sounds like for thomas its just bone, no ligament damage, so i bet someone pays him this summer

The bell situation with pitt is different, the franchise tag is horrible and needs to go away, or they need to make it something where a team franchises a player and he can choose a 1, 2, or 3 year deal so he can have future certainty, not be subject to year to year

[d_phaneuf]

Also i wish people would stop saying how surprised they are that fans side with the billionairs vs the 'everyman'

I hear that so often and its complete BS

In thomas case, this is not fans siding with paul allen over earl Thomas

Its siding with the seattle Seahawks, the team who they cheer for regardless of whether earl thomas plays for them.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Why take sides though? Everyone is allowed to do what is in their best interest. Thomas actually did the right thing here, he still played despite his unhappiness. And look what it got him.

[Displaced Flames fan]

So, does Mahomes get to 20 tonight against my lowly Broncos?