Wildcard Weekend Thoughts

Share this page

Oswlek said:
Now that I think about it, I'm absolutely certain they changed the rule because I can recall a play from last year when the ref specifically mentioned it.

In the Miami/Pitt game when Ben was awarded a TD, but it turned out he really fumbled the ball. After reviewing and determining that it was a fumble, despite the whistle having blown, Miami would have been awarded the ball if it could have been proven that they were the ones who recovered it (the ref specifically said this). Without evidence of recovery, the ball was awarded to Pittsburgh.

Unless the rule was changed back this offseason, the refs in Denver were both incorrect in their call and in their challenge interpretation.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the rule was changed back, so the refs in Denver really DID blow it twice. In the DET-NOLA game, though, I thought the whistle came AFTER the Lions had clearly taken possession. So, either way, while DET ended up being deprived of the return (potentially for a TD), once it was determined to be a fumble, it was the Lions' ball - and would have been even without the rule change. I think.
 
MaineMan said:
I don't think that the rule was changed back, so the refs in Denver really DID blow it twice. In the DET-NOLA game, though, I thought the whistle came AFTER the Lions had clearly taken possession. So, either way, while DET ended up being deprived of the return (potentially for a TD), once it was determined to be a fumble, it was the Lions' ball - and would have been even without the rule change. I think.
Click to expand...



We were at a bar watching the saints-lions game, so I did not hear when the whistle was, but "they" said it was blown right when the fumbled happened because the refs thought it was an incomplete pass. I can tell you, in the denver game, the whistle blew about the time Denver was jumping on the ball. According to the NFL it was early whistle blows in each incident. I also think you are right the rule was not changed, I think they were just going to make an effort to let the plays play out before blowing the whistle....guess not.
 
D. If Ben doesn't get time to run around, he's a bad QB. His game will decline quickly once the decline begins.
Click to expand...

This is why I've said for a while now that, despite his production, I'm not sure Mike Wallace would have been any better here than Brandon Tate was. Much of Wallace's game is built on sandlot plays where things break down and Ben finds him. The one play Brady did something similar against Minny last year, Tate broke free for a 65 yard TD.

Something tells me that Brandon Tate would be considered one of the better young WRs in the league if those two were swapped. And NE would be chastised for taking Wallace.
 
Seems like the only good game was the Steelers - Broncos. I think the Saints / Lions game had potential but that was completely halted by the second half domination. It would have been interesting had the refs not killed that potential fumble return to see how the game would have played out. After that it was five straight TDs.
 
Oswlek said:
This is why I've said for a while now that, despite his production, I'm not sure Mike Wallace would have been any better here than Brandon Tate was. Much of Wallace's game is built on sandlot plays where things break down and Ben finds him. The one play Brady did something similar against Minny last year, Tate broke free for a 65 yard TD.

Something tells me that Brandon Tate would be considered one of the better young WRs in the league if those two were swapped. And NE would be chastised for taking Wallace.
Click to expand...

One big difference between the two is seperation speed. Wallace demands doubles a lot and might be the fastest WR in the league. I don't think Tate has ever been doubled and wasn't anywhere near as good at getting open whether running his routes or scrambling to get open when things break down.

If we had him on the wing I believe this offense would be impossible to defend, instead of very difficult.

Having said that, the Pats ability to develop young WRs during the BB era has been questionable at best. I just don't think Tate had it.
 
The NFL Network shows this on their broadcast today.

scaled.php
 
Hawg73 said:
One big difference between the two is seperation speed. Wallace demands doubles a lot and might be the fastest WR in the league. I don't think Tate has ever been doubled and wasn't anywhere near as good at getting open whether running his routes or scrambling to get open when things break down.

If we had him on the wing I believe this offense would be impossible to defend, instead of very difficult.

Having said that, the Pats ability to develop young WRs during the BB era has been questionable at best. I just don't think Tate had it.
Click to expand...

You are right that Wallace seperates more quickly, but we've seen a few examples along the way of athletic freaks who couldn't get open. Unless Wallace has the brains, NE's system would probably short-cirtcuit a lot of what works for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top