Zelmo

You gave it a booth review, at least.

Lol....I think I'm done for the year doing booth reviews....remember that god damn Cruz play?

-Z

haha yah, i don't like the rule the way it is, either. But like you, I think it at the least warranted a booth review and it's astonishing that one wasn't given. It was definitely close.

I've never had any faith that the booth reviewer dude will review a close play for my team in the final two minutes...absolutely zero faith.

-Z

The point is, you can't just arbitrarily apply the same rule differently in nearly the same exact situation. But when you make it a subjective call based on what an NFL official sees on the field in real time, and refuse to go to the booth to review it, that's what you get....

 

I do know a good way to fix it, possession all the way to the ground/two feet in bounds, possession all the way to the ground.

 

The only two times that crossing the plane should be a touchdown is if the running back does it. Otherwise, complete the catch like you would complete the catch on the rest of the field...

I agree with all of this. I think the officiating has been terrible and inconsistent. Just thought that by the book the Lee Evans play wasn't a catch.

-Z

That's why you'll noticed the "based on current NFL rules" clause in my original post....

Gotcha... I didn't catch that that was tongue in cheek.

-Z

If the the Jennings catch was a touchdown and hell, even we benefited from the same exact thing happening to Shockey while he played for us, that's a touchdown.

Right but we all know the Jennings catch wasn't a TD. That was an egregious call.

-Z

I don't think the Lee Evans play was a TD. It is definitely not an open shut case. I think at best he starts losing possession at the same time the tippety toe of his second foot comes down. At best I think the loss of possesion happens simultaneously.

Here's my breakdown from Game Rewind:

Picture 1: Evans after securing the ball and getting his right, and first foot, down:

Picture 2: Evans still has clear possession of the ball, though there's no sign that any part of his left foot has come down yet:

Picture 3: This is probably the most controversial picture...the dislodging of the ball has clearly begun, and it is unclear if and how much of his left foot is touching the ground..It's clear that his foot isn't down but it's possible that at this point his toes are grazing the ground...

Picture 4: This is the first time it is clear that any part of his left foot is down, and by now the ball is completely out...even now it is only his toes that have come down at this point:

Picture 5: The left is down all the way, and the ball is way out

Here are a few pics from a different angle....

Picture 1: It's hard to gauge exactly where in the sequence of pictures above this corresponds to but judging from how much the ball is protruding from under his forearm it looks to me like sometime around Picture 3 from above...

PIcture 2: Here his toes are clearly on the ground...to me judging from the ball it looks like around the time of Picture 4 above, and above by Picture 4 possession is already gone

Picture 3: Foot completely down....ball completely out

They got the call right.

I do think it was close enough for a booth review, and I think it's egregious that there wasn't one, but I think they got it right.

-Z

34-14 Packers

Nem I think it's time you finally stopped being down on this team and jumped on the bandwagon.

Come on man take the plunge...

-Z

The freaking Jennings TD they looked at in such uber-mega-super slow motion that they found the one split microsecond that the ball was remotely still with his hand under it.

-Z

Bad call....I was lead to believe that when the ball crosses the outer plane of the goal, it is a touchdown. In this case, you had a ball that crossed the plane PRIOR TO CONTACT WITH THE SECONDARY, and then got jarred.

 

 

Great assist by Aikman and Buck to help talk the replay booth into overulling the call

When the ball crosses the outer plane of the goal it is indeed a touchdown, and the contact came after that.

One of the announcers said, "It depends if they look at this in real-time or slow-motion"

-Z

It's ridiculous

-Z

The dog is not sure what the "point" is in either case, but since NE is the only team to date that has a winning record that the giants have beaten, then by all means keep pulling it out. Come back wins against losing teams in every other win doesn't make for a very intriguing resume. They are very fortunate that they play in that mediocre division where anything can happen.

NE being the only team with a winning record that they have beaten is definitely a fair point.

But surely you realize how disingenuous it is to break down their wins and discredit them by pointing out that many of them have been very close games against bad teams, games that they almost lost, and then say that loses cannot be broken down and analyzed, a loss is a loss, and ignore the fact that some of their losses have been against excellent teams and were games they damn near almost won. I'm just saying it goes both ways. If you're gonna discredit wins by looking at the exact circumstances, than it's only fair that circumstances be looked at in losses and well. And when you do that you see that yes, the Giants have been in very ugly games with bad teams, and lost to bad teams, and the Giants have also played NE, GB, NO, and SF and went absolutely toe to toe with every one of those teams except NO.

Does this mean the Giants are a championship team? Does it mean they're even gonna make the playoffs? No, obviously. They are perched at 6-6. Partly because bringing consistent intensity is a component of being a good team, and the Giants for some reason fail to do that.

You say they're fortunate playing in such a weak division this year. I can easily counter how unfortunate they are with the unending circus of injuries they've had this year. There are so many circumstances and so many ways you can analyze everything depending on how much weight you give to each circumstance.

The only thing that matters in the end though, is 6-6. .500, average...we'll see how the rest of the season goes.

-Z

Okay. Sorry. They beat NE. And, by all means, hang onto that NE victory in Gillette when your sitting home with NE in Jan.

That really isn't the point...the point is you leaving out facts which transpired that are relevant to the point you're trying to make...

-Z

I'm not arguing with this. I think if the Cowboys want to be considered something more than an average team, they need to win at least 3 out of the last 4, starting with a win against a team fighting for their lives Sunday night.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the Giants had their chance to proves themselves and already and failed. SF. NO. GB. And to some extent, Philly at home. A game you have to win.

 

I'm not saying its impossible for the Giants to go on a run, but they have to do more than win Sunday night to convince me of anything. Right now, the measuring stick is SF, NO, GB. Not Dallas.

I love how you leave out us beating NE in Gillette.

-Z

The Giants are taking this game, and you can take that to the bank. The Cowboys are meeting the wrong team at the wrong time.

-Z

The funniest part about this list is that Rex Ryan is on it....I thought Rex was supposed to be the opposite of Coughlin and that everyone in the NFL was dying to play for the Jets?

This is nonsense.

-Z

Z, can you find a vid for Ballard's catch?

I'm assuming you mean this one:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-york-giants/09000d5d823d9f08/QB-Manning-to-TE-Ballard-28-yd-pass

(There's no replay because the clock was running and the broadcast couldn't show a replay until later when the clock was stopped.)

-Z

WARNING: This may make JMFP's sarcastic "Tom Coughlin Has Lost The Team" sensor literally explode.

http://www.giants.com/media-vault/videos/Giants-celebrate-comeback-win-vs-Patriots/cb25b0ec-10de-444f-8a7d-a041c5e7e096

-Z

Well to be fair to Tynes the distance he was kicking had never been completed by any kicker at Lambeau Field ever after December, I think that was the month, before his game winner. It must have been like trying to kick a rock.

 

The one he made to win it was farther than the ones he missed.

He missed from 43 yards out early in the fourth, and he missed from 36 yards with 4 seconds left. (And btw he hit a 37 yarder earlier in the game). Then he nailed the game winner from 47 yards. It was totally ridiculous and I don't think I've ever had less confidence in anything than when I saw him walk out on the field to kick that FG in OT.

I'm pretty sure you were trying to say that his actual 47 yard game winner was impressive, but that was Tree's point, that he missed other easy opportunities to win the game. (To put his miss from 36 in perspective, Tynes himself had hit earlier from 37, and the Packers kicker made kicks of 36 and 37....so the weather isn't a valid excuse for missing that kick, at all.)

-Z

I shudder every time I see him step on the field....

-Z

Abso-freaking-lutely... At the time I thought it was dumb, I figured rest our guys who cares if the Pats go 16-0, our job is to win a SB and we're a wildcard team with a road playoff games ahead of us and the game is completely meaningless for us let's just rest our guys...and I've never in my entire life been more wrong. We don't play our starters in week 17 and we don't win that SB, plain and simple.

-Z

It's time for us to lay the smackdown on this pretty boy:

-Z

So 4 carries and he's back to being the worst RB on the team?

 

This was simply another game unfortunately showing our inability to run the ball effectively, no matter who is carrying it.

 

21 first downs, 2 via the ground game.

It's not just these four carries, and it's not just this game, and it's not just coming back from injury.

He's hesitant and not explosive in any way with the ball. Bottom line is he doesn't make plays anymore.

If he'd pick his lane, hit it hard instead of pansying around, push the pile, and avoid falling flat on his face at the LOS every other play, it'd be a different story.

I like Jacobs, I always thought he was capable of doing amazing things. But he hasn't performed all season.

And it's not just our terrible run blocking. Bradshaw does more with what he's given by the blocking than Jacobs.

-Z

I am incorrect in this statement. I retract it. He's been awful and turned into a head case. I thought maybe he'd be motivated to show us all something. But he comes in, fumbles and luckily recovers it, then drops a pass that is easily a positive gain.

 

Then, every touch he got he fell down at the line of scrimmage. He cannot even change direction in the slightest. Yet he either tries to and gets stopped running parallel to the LOS, or he goes straight into a pile up.

Storm, I was gonna fight you on that post last night, but decided not to. Guess it was a good move lol.

There's a lot of blown potential in Jacobs. A lot.

-Z

The crowd really gave it to him today.

-Z

The Bills beat the Patriots. Just because we beat the Bills doesn't mean we should be ranked ahead of them. You'd find little argument around the league that the Patriots are actually the better football team than the Bills (hence them being ahead of the Bills even though the Bills took them down, no one would argue the Bills are the better football team). So by this logic, you would also be saying that the Giants are better than the Patriots, which they aren't, following solely the win-loss and head-to-head logic. So everything has to be taken with a grain of salt in these power rankings and to say one team is better than the other because they beat them (and by only 3 points, it was an excellent game and who knows if we pull it out had we been on the road) is flawed logic and doesn't take into account what makes a power ranking....a power ranking.

 

Like Dog said, and I barely like the guy ( ), there are a ton of other factors such as strength of schedule, the strength of the teams you have beaten (or even lost to), and I would even be willing to bet teams like GB and New Orleans get a little bit of a bump in the power rankings simply because they have superstar QBs that are capable of winning with talent that lesser teams would lose with.

To me the funniest flaw in the whole we beat them and they beat so and so so we're better than so an so logic, is that it's always self-contradictory in the end...

For example, from this season:

Giants beat Bills...Bills beat Patriots....Patriots beat Cowboys...Cowboys beat 49ers...49ers beat Seahawks....

Yet the Seahawks beat the Giants, which makes the whole thing paradoxical and stupid. Also realize, that we play every one of the teams in that chain this year, and should we lose a single game to any of them it will just make the "paradox" worse.

It's just stupid.

-Z