The Game Ball: Wk. 13 at Buffalo
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
1927 - 1933. Then back to (forward to?) the goal line until the 70s.
(I've seen games with them on the goal line and I'm still quite a bit shy of 94 y/o.)
I think the rule is about blocked punts mostly. Blocked punts if recovered behind the line of scrimmage can be advanced by either team and so I think the purpose of the rule is to make clear that if a punt is blocked and hits the goal posts and bounces back into the field of play it cannot be recovered by the offensive team and advanced or recovered by the blocking team for a touchdown or possession.
It's really just another way to make the point that the goal posts are out of bounds even if the ball doesn't touch the ground.
Was not able to watch the game unfortunately. When I checked the box score in the morning, and saw Mac was 2/3 passing, I assumed he must have gotten injured, or replaced, or something else horrible happened to derail the season. Luckily, not so - Still in disbelief that a team in this era can win throwing 3 forward passes!
Game ball to Steve Belichick - I cannot imagine the burden on this young man’s shoulders, with his decisions on defense (playcalls etc) potentially affecting his fathers legacy. Its an added level of pressure that most playcallers don’t have to deal with. I think that would be a difficult situation for many of us to be in, and it shows great mental fortitude to do it as well as he does.
Game ball to Steve Belichick - I cannot imagine the burden on this young man’s shoulders, with his decisions on defense (playcalls etc) potentially affecting his fathers legacy. Its an added level of pressure that most playcallers don’t have to deal with. I think that would be a difficult situation for many of us to be in, and it shows great mental fortitude to do it as well as he does.
My guess is he's focused on the next game or the next play and not even considering this. If his dad has taught him anything.
Thank you. They're jumping around like they just had 3 Four Lokos too. That video stresses me out. I'm glad I don't watch ESPN.
Sure, but they also seem supremely excited about an aspect of football that few recognize outside the real junkies: running plays can be just as intricate as passing plays. To untrained eyes, it seemed like Buffalo was undersized, or sufficiently unathletic at the LB and/or SS positions, to prevent the Pats from running all over them. No! As Buffalo adjusted later in the game, they could handle it ok. It was the early scheming and exceptional work by the O-Line to create the holes that scored the key TD (and 2PC) early, and the first downs to keep milking the clock late. This wasn't all-time RB talents like Henry bowling over guys, or Sanders juking past them - this was a team effort in terrible conditions to win a pivotal game. Coked up or not, I loved their enthusiasm.
Pretty sure some of the board has seen the snap hit the goalpost on a punt. They are all very unlikely and I would suspect we won't see any of them again. Of course if you had asked me in 2002 if I'd see a snap hit a goal post I'd have said the same thing.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX8nE6pR2_A
Oh man, if they’d called that…
If they really wanted perfect alignment they’d put down dark green lines at every yard mark or something in addition to the hash marks, or one of the officials would be in charge of “clearing” alignment along the line of scrimmage before each play (instead of the informal way it’s done now). The “we only call it if it’s obvious” approach is pretty…subjective.
Where Andrews holds the ball is not necessarily the original line of scrimmage. The officials give the centers a little bit of leeway with moving the ball a little bit. Look where the ref on the far sideline is standing, he is more or less straddling that line. Technically the nose of the ball, in that instance should be on the line. But you can tell that Andrews is holding the ball a bit further back.
I don't think he was offsides. The center usually moves the ball back from the LOS when they pick it up getting ready to hike.
Some great tidbits in here from Reiss - I especially enjoyed #5 and 7
View: https://twitter.com/mikereiss/status/1468639178049003523?s=21
View: https://twitter.com/mikereiss/status/1468639178049003523?s=21
I dont want to argue....and it certainly doesnt matter now.....but I am an asshole... 
No one else is that far forward. Interesting...
The SJ usually "Centers up the Hash" that the ball is on. You can see him astride the 36
Based on where Andrews has the Ball its pretty safe to assume the Nose of the Ball was on the 36. He picks it up brings it back to the 35.5
It looks like (and it could indeed be angles) that Harry has his toe just before the 36.
To be onsides you need to be BEHIND the ball. Not in front. Not even. Behind.
Now I admit I dont know how the "Center Adjustment" comes into play with that rule (IE if Andrews has it on the 35.5 does everyone need to be behind the 35.5 or the original LOS 36.) I would assume its the original LOS but That leaves a bit of gray area......What if Andrews moved it back to the 35.33 or 35.25 or 35, Could everyone else line up essentially in front of the ball but behind the LOS???
Regardless Harry is even with at least a portion of where the ball WAS (36-->11 inches) and even or ahead of where Andrews has made his adjustment.
End of the day thrilled nothing was called. Maybe as you guys say....nothing is there. But if there was I am sure BB and guys smarter then me will point this out and be like "Harry make Goddamn sure your onsides".
Cause yeah.....that woulda sucked.
No one else is that far forward. Interesting...
The SJ usually "Centers up the Hash" that the ball is on. You can see him astride the 36
Based on where Andrews has the Ball its pretty safe to assume the Nose of the Ball was on the 36. He picks it up brings it back to the 35.5
It looks like (and it could indeed be angles) that Harry has his toe just before the 36.
To be onsides you need to be BEHIND the ball. Not in front. Not even. Behind.
Now I admit I dont know how the "Center Adjustment" comes into play with that rule (IE if Andrews has it on the 35.5 does everyone need to be behind the 35.5 or the original LOS 36.) I would assume its the original LOS but That leaves a bit of gray area......What if Andrews moved it back to the 35.33 or 35.25 or 35, Could everyone else line up essentially in front of the ball but behind the LOS???
Regardless Harry is even with at least a portion of where the ball WAS (36-->11 inches) and even or ahead of where Andrews has made his adjustment.
End of the day thrilled nothing was called. Maybe as you guys say....nothing is there. But if there was I am sure BB and guys smarter then me will point this out and be like "Harry make Goddamn sure your onsides".
Cause yeah.....that woulda sucked.
Am I the only one seeing the ball on exactly the 36? 1:52 in the video. You can't see the hash until the snap because the ball is literally covering it up.
That’s what Orlovsky does. He’s always yelling even when he’s not. Unwatchable.
Fair. Good catch. Like I said. Maybe it was the still shot angle. Cause yes at 1:52 I agree with you the rear Nose of the ball is on the 36
( So 11 inches<--36).
So its entirely possible that the tail of the ball was on the 36....Andrews picks it up and adjusts it.....Harry puts his toe just prior to the 36. That would be kosher and I would be full o shite
Layman here, but on #10: wind at their backs in the fourth and a pretty evident point of emphasis in forcing teams to return kicks and avoiding touchbacks, perhaps Bill wanted less on the ball to ensure something that was at least potentially returnable? I can't think of any other explanation.
I don't get that either. I'm not sure how tailgating is impacted by dome or no dome.
I think it is pretty amazing that there is a segment of Bills fans who think the decision on what kind of stadium to build should be made on the basis of the 2021 Bills being a passing team that they think would do better in a dome. By the time the thing is built who knows how many of the same players would even be on the roster. If you want to maximize Josh Allen's window you might want to figure out a way to play better in the elements, since you currently play in Buffalo and not in a dome.
It’s absurd. The Packers seem to be just fine with Favre and then Rodgers, and who would give up the Lambeau experience for another modern domed monstrosity? Part of what I love about baseball and football is the character of many of the stadiums and, particularly for football, the variety of elements games are played in.
It’s nonsensical that Buffalo has built a dome team that plays in the AFCE, but the solution isn’t to build a dome….it’s to change your roster construction, particularly on the lines, and strategy.
And frankly, Buffalo would get its ass kicked upfront by the likes of Indy, NE, and Tennessee even if they played the games in a dome, so they’d lose most of those games even if they could pass better (note: so couldn’t those other teams!).
The entire nfl is made up of passing teams. It totally makes sense to try to reinforce the ability to pass, for any team, no? Not in response to specific players on the roster, but it’s not like in 5 years the nfl will move away from passing.
If they build a new stadium, there’s no reason why a domed or open stadium would be more or less likely to be a monstrosity. Good designers can design a good domed stadium. Bad designers will likely design and bad stadium, either way.
Meaning the appeal? Or the utility?
I think very few animals can perceive orange, so it’s grey on grey.
I also think very few humans have good taste, so…
You want the orange so other hunters don’t shoot you. From what I understand, deer are colorblind so the camo pattern serves mainly to break up your outline. I’m not a hunter and the camouflage I wear has no orange in it.
This sentiment irritates me.
Part of football is the possibility of playing in the elements, especially in the northern half of the country. The Pats were a fine passing team for 20 years playing in an open stadium in a cold and windy location. In the early 1990's when the NFL was colluding with Orthwein to move the Patriots, one of the reasons was that the league wanted all of its games in a warm weather locale or a dome.
Good teams win at home and on the road regardless of the weather. If a visiting team cannot handle the elements, oh well, such is the breaks. If the home team cannot deal with the elements, then they need a new coach.
If the entire NFL is made up of passing teams (and more and more teams play all of their home games and a significant number of road games in domes), doesn't it make more sense, especially for teams in cold weather locations, to have an open-aired stadium and build a team that can play in the elements? That can be a massive advantage, as we have seen in Foxboro for the last 20 years. The dome is not likely to give your team any particular advantage if, as you say, the entire NFL is trying to pass all the time.
Beyond that, Josh Allen may not even be on the Bills or in the NFL by the time the Bills have a functional domed stadium. If Bills fans want to win with Allen, it makes way more sense to build a team capable of playing outside rather than waiting for a dome.
I should have added that the Jim Kelly Bills had no issue with the elements, and they were a high-octane offense of the era. And the Chiefs aren't exactly struggling in KC, which definitely experiences cold and windy weather this time of year.
Right. BB said it on Monday, "that's why we practice in this shit". Obviously not every team is going to be able to practice in the cold or snow, and some teams might go most of the season without even playing outside, so for a northern team that plays the last third of the season in potentially inclement weather, it just seems nuts to give up that advantage. Although I am sure owners care about that a lot less than the economics.
I think there's a decent argument that the NFL is a passing league now so it makes sense to stop trying to be the 1966 Green Bay Packers and just learn to sling it in a dome. Obviously, the success of the Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Giants, Seahawks, and Chiefs over the past 15 years (since the rule changes) vs. only Indy and New Orleans (I think) being dome team champs, so that sort of undermines that theory so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: well, that got covered in way more detail since I typed this up but failed to hit post so whatever
It's not complimentary to the Pats, but I keep circling back to "The Break Like The Wind Game" from the Bills point of view.
Oh don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying everyone ‘should’ have domes. I’m glad that the Patriots do not. My only point is that ‘don’t build a dome, because Allen will be gone by then’ is an irrelevant notion. Build a dome, or don’t. If Allen isn’t your QB, your next 10 QB’s will have to be able to pass the ball.
Yeah it might make sense to not build a dome, as maybe it confers some counterintuitive advantage. I’m cool with that.
My only point is that ‘don’t build a dome, because Allen will be gone by then’ is an irrelevant notion. Build a dome, or don’t. If Allen isn’t your QB, your next 10 QB’s will have to be able to pass the ball.
Yes, they should build a team that can win in the current stadium. But that’s not mutually exclusive with the long term decision making about the dome or no.
my understanding is that there’s already a stadium convo happening, so it’s not like they’re actually building a stadium ‘for the current team’.
I honestly don’t give a shit but it’s beyond inane to have the makeup of the current team factor into what kind of stadium you build. Some Bills fans, including that guy in the YouTube video, specifically want a dome for this year’s team. That’s absurd and what my original post was about. I don’t think the Bills owners are that stupid or that it will factor into what will actually happen there. I’m specifically talking about Bills fans who think the solution right now is “build a dome” rather than “build a team around Josh Allen that can win in the stadium that exists today”.
