My views on the Detroit Game

[Docsandy]

Okay.. perhaps I shouldn't start a new thread... but I have to put some thoughts down, plus I'd like some feedback and answers from those watching on TV since I was at the game. Missed being in chat with everyone and while I love being at the game, sometimes we can't see on the field (even with the replays on the jumbotrons) what you might see on TV with replays.

Game started with a moment of silence for the Navy Yard victims and survivors, with the Navy Yard Honor Guard presenting the flag. For me it was emotional as I know someone who works at the Navy Yard (who is okay).

First thing, what I saw that I liked:
1) We were in game from the very beginning.
2) Run defense not bad.
3) It looks like they are starting to let RG be "RG".. letting him take chances with rnning, play action, etc. He looked a little more like last year's RG than he has the first two games. Yes, he made 2 really bad mistakes (see what I didn't like below and questions regarding it).. and they were mistakes you may have expected during his rookie year. But at the same time, I am considering these first 4 games his "preseason" since he didn't take even one snap during the preseason. At this point, I do not believe we should pull him and put in Cousins even after the bye week.
4) Kerrigan... still a beast. We're lucky to have him.
5) Potter filling in for Kai... much better this week on kickoffs.
6) Special team coverage on kickoffs and punts... not bad.

Now, what I didn't like
1) When are we going to learn to tackle? Granted we stopped the run pretty well, but the secondary is really really bad. Tackling is basic that players should learn in their early years of football.. back to high school or even earlier. So many missed tackles it was ridiculous.
2) Questionable referee calls. Now this is where I need some help. I think most of you know I understand football, but i don't claim to know everything there is to know.

First, the personal foul on the defense player who facemasked Morris. Personally, I think that was more than a personal foul and the player should have been ejected. From what I saw, not onlly was it an intentional facemask (and was called as so), he yanked Almo's head around to the point I feared for his neck and his helmet went fling. Any bets that player gets fined?

Second, RG's run and subsequent fumble. I'm really confused and perhaps there is a new rulel that I'm not aware of. Okay, I understand he should have slid feet first and it would have protected him from getting hit, not to mention protect the possession of the ball. My understanding that if a QB however takes off and starts running, he is now a "runner"... he went head first, yes but his knees AND elbows were down before the ball came loose. I heard from one of the post-game interviews that this exact situation happened with Brady a couple seasons ago, and the ruling was not a fumble. Now RG's was called as a fumble and the ball went to Detroit

Third, involving RG's interception with him rolling out. They showed a replay on the jumbotron several times of what looked like a horsecollar pull down b a Detroit defender. Why wasn't that called? Did they show replays of that and say anything about it? Again, they went 3 and out but again, we were iwithin striking distance and at least within field goal range.

3. On the TD that was reversed... the announcers and the commentators on the radio said it was a good call, so I guess I have to concede that. I understand after a catch, a "football" move has to be made before it is considered a catch. Isn't crossing the goal line a football move? Does that rule only apply to runners who run out of bounds but reach the ball inside the pylon and the ball crosses the goal line. Perhaps even on the jumbotron, I didn't see it clear enough... did he have possession when he crossed the goal line, before he started going down and juggled the ball? Since the consensus of the people on the radio says it was a good call, I guess I have to believe that... but it was such a gorgeous throw.

I came out of the game not nearly as disappointed as one might think Sure, being 0-3 sucks; but this game we were in it from the very end.

Thanks for any comments, especially answers re: the rules.

See you in chat for the Oakland game

Sandy

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Second, RG's run and subsequent fumble. I'm really confused and perhaps there is a new rulel that I'm not aware of. Okay, I understand he should have slid feet first and it would have protected him from getting hit, not to mention protect the possession of the ball. My understanding that if a QB however takes off and starts running, he is now a "runner"... he went head first, yes but his knees AND elbows were down before the ball came loose. I heard from one of the post-game interviews that this exact situation happened with Brady a couple seasons ago, and the ruling was not a fumble. Now RG's was called as a fumble and the ball went to Detroit

He becomes a runner, and subsequently must be touched down to end the play. Falling forward and fumbling is the same as if he just dropped the ball Vick-style.

Third, involving RG's interception with him rolling out. They showed a replay on the jumbotron several times of what looked like a horsecollar pull down b a Detroit defender. Why wasn't that called? Did they show replays of that and say anything about it? Again, they went 3 and out but again, we were iwithin striking distance and at least within field goal range.

Looked like a horsecollar to me, but I couldn't hear the announcers at the bar either. The only thing I can think of is that he didn't have the back of the jersey? I don't know. I thought it should have been called either, and it looked like both Griffin & Shanahan were upset that it wasn't called.

3. On the TD that was reversed... the announcers and the commentators on the radio said it was a good call, so I guess I have to concede that. I understand after a catch, a "football" move has to be made before it is considered a catch. Isn't crossing the goal line a football move? Does that rule only apply to runners who run out of bounds but reach the ball inside the pylon and the ball crosses the goal line. Perhaps even on the jumbotron, I didn't see it clear enough... did he have possession when he crossed the goal line, before he started going down and juggled the ball? Since the consensus of the people on the radio says it was a good call, I guess I have to believe that... but it was such a gorgeous throw.

Beautiful throw - but you have to maintain control all the way to the ground, regardless of a football move. It didn't appear that he did, at least to me..

I also agree with you that I'm not as disappointed as I should be at 0-3...they definitely looked better yesterday.

 

[burgold]

On the catch/non catch.

You can see the ball move, but the ball is allowed to move as long as the reciever's hand is still underneath it. I saw no shot that said that the receiver ever lost the ball. Not a millisecond where he was seperated from the ball. Since they are supposed to have conclusive proof the play on the field should have stood.

 

[Ax]

1) When are we going to learn to tackle?

Rumor has it, that we will have some pee-wee league players at practice this week, to teach our guys how to tackle. It's hoped, that the smallness of the pee-wee players, will allow an occasional tackle to be made by our guys, therefore boosting their confidence. I have my doubts.

2) Questionable referee calls. Now this is where I need some help. I think most of you know I understand football, but i don't claim to know everything there is to know.

First, the personal foul on the defense player who facemasked Morris. Personally, I think that was more than a personal foul and the player should have been ejected. From what I saw, not onlly was it an intentional facemask (and was called as so), he yanked Almo's head around to the point I feared for his neck and his helmet went fling. Any bets that player gets fined?

Well, he didn't actually grab the facemask. But, he was under it, grabbing the neck/chin, in an effort to remove Morris' head. Hence the penalty. I doubt he will be fined.

Second, RG's run and subsequent fumble. I'm really confused and perhaps there is a new rulel that I'm not aware of. Okay, I understand he should have slid feet first and it would have protected him from getting hit, not to mention protect the possession of the ball. My understanding that if a QB however takes off and starts running, he is now a "runner"... he went head first, yes but his knees AND elbows were down before the ball came loose. I heard from one of the post-game interviews that this exact situation happened with Brady a couple seasons ago, and the ruling was not a fumble. Now RG's was called as a fumble and the ball went to Detroit

Well, we all know the Cheatriots, and Tom Terrific, get special treatment. I don't recall the play you referenced with Mr. Gisele, but I don't doubt it for a minute.

However, fumble, was the correct call against Robert. He has to protect the ball better.

Third, involving RG's interception with him rolling out. They showed a replay on the jumbotron several times of what looked like a horsecollar pull down b a Detroit defender. Why wasn't that called? Did they show replays of that and say anything about it?

I never saw it as anything but inadvertent. Defender let go almost immediately. And even though it seemed to take him down, he was off balance from throwing across his body, as well. good non-call, IMO.

3. On the TD that was reversed... the announcers and the commentators on the radio said it was a good call, so I guess I have to concede that. I understand after a catch, a "football" move has to be made before it is considered a catch. Isn't crossing the goal line a football move? Does that rule only apply to runners who run out of bounds but reach the ball inside the pylon and the ball crosses the goal line. Perhaps even on the jumbotron, I didn't see it clear enough... did he have possession when he crossed the goal line, before he started going down and juggled the ball?

I saw the ball move as it happened. Was convinced it would be overturned after seeing the replay. Robinson has to catch that ball, 100% of the time. As I've said in another thread though, the ball was a hair late, and a little under thrown.

 

[Bulldog]

I think we have to remember the Lions are an average team.

Stafford was able to put up 385 yards with one pro bowl skill player in the lineup, Calvin Johnson.

Burleson is hardly a premiere threat but he ended up with over 100 yards as well.

In the backfield there was no Reggie Bush but the Lions were able to get 126 total yards and a touchdown from one of their backups.

The only thing that looked better to me was that Griffin looked more comfortable. Comfortable enough to run and throw from a moving pocket, although his turnovers were still a problem.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

On the catch/non catch.

You can see the ball move, but the ball is allowed to move as long as the reciever's hand is still underneath it. I saw no shot that said that the receiver ever lost the ball. Not a millisecond where he was seperated from the ball. Since they are supposed to have conclusive proof the play on the field should have stood.

Right, but as soon as you can see the ball move and hitting the ground, that's enough to overturn it. That's an incomplete catch. At that point, you have to see the hand underneath to NOT overturn it, IMO. The way it moved when it hit the ground, no ref in the world will uphold that catch with that evidence. Personally, I think he had it towards the end of the ball (you can see his hand on the ball as he rolls over, its towards the back) and therefore it was not underneath it. I think there's a slim chance he held onto it throughout the catch, but its unlikely.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Not going to have the catch/no-catch argument again because frankly, I'm tired of re-living it. The vast majority of people who saw the play agreed it was incomplete. Young heard Kyle Shanahan say it would be overturned. The crowd went completely silent, because all 80K of them knew it would be ruled incomplete. The sideline went quiet and deflated because they knew. Should have been a touchdown and he should have caught it cleanly. If he went to the ground with both hands on the ball instead of bracing his fall, it would have probably been a catch. All-around a disappointing play.

EDIT: this picture appears to show he had his hand on it at the moment of impact, but I think he lost control after this moment. That's what the video showed IMO, anyway.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

NVM...not worth it.

 

[Docsandy]

Hey guys, I didn't want to start an argument. While I love going to games, and I'm pretty proud of my knowledge of football, you know they always show angles on the jumbotron that will favor the skins if they can. I was basing my opinion on the "ball breaking the line of the goal line" while under control and I honestly felt he had control at that point. If it's true he has to maintain control through the end, well, okay.

As far as the horsecollar call, I don't care if it was inadvertent or released immediately, all these new rules to "protect the quarterback" should apply to every quarterback, not just quarterbacks that the refs are "taking care of". If it was inadvertent, still call it ... but okay, no fine. That's just my opinion on that.

I will see you all in chat. I doubt we are getting the Oakland game.. too many other late games that involve teams closer to me so we'll get one of those.. so I'll have to depend on you guys unless I can find a feed/stream that's decent.

Bottom line.. I still came away a little more positive because I started (and I stress STARTED) seeing some of last year's RG3. HTTR and talk to you all Sunday.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Sorry for hijacking your thread, Docsandy!

 

[Docsandy]

I don't think you hijacked it.. hey it only proves I'm not writing just to myself.. you guys actually read what I write ::grin::

Sorry for hijacking your thread, Docsandy!