Is Rich Gannon a hater or a moron?

[PatsWickedPissah]

He was. I always respected Gannon. Remember how he started off playing better than Brady in that game? I had always thought of him as a dome QB before that game.

That was a fumble. I would be bitter too.

So, you "make up" your own rules and eschew the NFL rulebook?

 

[Joker]

I don't think Gannon is a hater or a moron BUT...when his name is mentioned it DOES bring out the hater morons in droves.

 

[rojo8401]

So, you "make up" your own rules and eschew the NFL rulebook?

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

There are quite a few NFL rules that I would not only eschew but carpet bomb into oblivion. Just because that particular rule benefitted my team doesn't prevent me from detesting it.

The tuck rule is a terrible, terrible idea. It needs to go.

 

[Deus Irae]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

There are quite a few NFL rules that I would not only eschew but carpet bomb into oblivion. Just because that particular rule benefitted my team doesn't prevent me from detesting it.

The tuck rule is a terrible, terrible idea. It needs to go.

The tuck rule is still in effect because it's better than the alternatives, and the call was correctly made. Hell, the man who made the initial call overruled himself after seeing it on replay. The play on Brady was not a fumble, just as it wasn't earlier in the year when it happened to Testaverde.

 

[Rob0729]

Hey Rob and anyone else who has Sirius.....how do you like it overall?(other than this incident) I've been thinking about getting it but am not sure. I listen to talk radio far more than music in the car, and have been pretty unhappy with all the beating of the dead horse that is the red sox lately.

Not only that but I'd love having someplace to listen to that is football all the time as it's by far the sport I'm most interested in. Does it have stations that are football 24/7, and if so, is it quality programming? If it's good stuff that alone would probably be enough, never mind all the other stuff.

I'm gonna go look into it more now, just thought I'd ask for a pats fan's opinion if they didn't mind. Sorry to drag you off topic a bit, and thanks in advance!

I have several subscriptions to Sirius and listen to Sirius NFL radio often. Not a huge fan of Gannon, but am a fan of the channel. Most of the guys actually talk real football without the grab arse crap that both local radio stations use. Also, unlike both local radio stations, they don't get bogged down over talking about hot button issues and controversies. The downside is if you are looking for Pats talk, you can literally go days without hearing any although they do try to get a good mix of all the teams in their talk.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

There are quite a few NFL rules that I would not only eschew but carpet bomb into oblivion. Just because that particular rule benefitted my team doesn't prevent me from detesting it.

The tuck rule is a terrible, terrible idea. It needs to go.

It's one thing not to "like" a rule, quite another to claim that the opposite outcome is so. It isn't.

Back to the detested rule. It has been called many times prior to that including bailing out the NY Jets from what you would call a "fumble" earlier that season against the Pats. But the salient issue is that the rule makes the play deterministic vs. relying on each ref's subjective interpretation of the play. It reduces the potential for favoritism.

 

[rojo8401]

The tuck rule is still in effect because it's better than the alternatives, and the call was correctly made. Hell, the man who made the initial call overruled himself after seeing it on replay. The play on Brady was not a fumble, just as it wasn't earlier in the year when it happened to Testaverde.

I think it's a stupid rule regardless of any mitigating factors. A fumble is a fumble in my book. I think lawyers are ruining the game so maybe I'm biased.

BTW I was just listening to your namesake about an hour ago. One of my faves.

 

[rojo8401]

It's one thing not to "like" a rule, quite another to claim that the opposite outcome is so. It isn't.

Back to the detested rule. It has been called many times prior to that including bailing out the NY Jets from what you would call a "fumble" earlier that season against the Pats. But the salient issue is that the rule makes the play deterministic vs. relying on each ref's subjective interpretation of the play. It reduces the potential for favoritism.

I understand your point here and I can see it's purpose. I just think it's one of those rules that unnecessarily complicates the game.

I want less rules overall so I reveal my bias I guess.

When I was watching the game it looked like a fumble and every time I watch it again it still looks like a fumble.

 

[Rob0729]

Wasnt he the QB in the "tuck rule" game? PLus he was like 45 yrs in old and maybe his last year (looking at stats he only played 10 games after that in 2years), thats a tough pill to swallow even after all these years when maybe you coulda had a rinig.

To his credit, Gannon said that the Tuck Rule wasn't the reason the Raiders lost that game. To his discredit, Gannon said that the Pats used a videotape that clearly had his audibles loud enough to hear to win. He and Tim Brown started an unsubstantiated rumor that while with the Raiders, the front office showed him a videotape that the Pats used to prepare for that game that had the audibles clear to hear. Neither guy could say how the Raiders would have gotten the tape or who would have the tape now. EDIT: I think both guys ended up denying saying it, but I can't find anything now.

Also, Gannon called a game this year for CBS (I think it was the Pats/Bills game) where he admitted that he was bitter about the Pats drafting him and refusing to let him play QB. He said the Pats wanted him to play either receiver or TE and he wanted no part of it.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I understand your point here and I can see it's purpose. I just think it's one of those rules that unnecessarily complicates the game.

I want less rules overall so I reveal my bias I guess.

When I was watching the game it looked like a fumble and every time I watch it again it still looks like a fumble.

That's a big part of your problem. You think completely bassackwards.

The principle behind the "Tuck Rule" is to eliminate officiating interpretation of actual events. Absent the rule, the human factor becomes the the judge on if it was a pass or fumble. By definition, inserting "human factor" is the best way to complicate the game.

"Tuck Rule" is black and white.

You prove it completely. You "think" it looked like a fumble (reference the duck comment).

You seriously think anyone wants an outcome determined by what you "think"?

 

[rojo8401]

That's a big part of your problem. You think completely bassackwards.

The principle behind the "Tuck Rule" is to eliminate officiating interpretation of actual events. Absent the rule, the human factor becomes the the judge on if it was a pass or fumble. By definition, inserting "human factor" is the best way to complicate the game.

"Tuck Rule" is black and white.

You prove it completely. You "think" it looked like a fumble (reference the duck comment).

You seriously think anyone wants an outcome determined by what you "think"?

Absolutely!

 

[Dessalines]

The PATS defense is getting and will continue to get better. Don't really care what Rich Gannon thinks.

 

[captain stone]

To his credit, Gannon said that the Tuck Rule wasn't the reason the Raiders lost that game. To his discredit, Gannon said that the Pats used a videotape that clearly had his audibles loud enough to hear to win. He and Tim Brown started an unsubstantiated rumor that while with the Raiders, the front office showed him a videotape that the Pats used to prepare for that game that had the audibles clear to hear. Neither guy could say how the Raiders would have gotten the tape or who would have the tape now. EDIT: I think both guys ended up denying saying it, but I can't find anything now.

Also, Gannon called a game this year for CBS (I think it was the Pats/Bills game) where he admitted that he was bitter about the Pats drafting him and refusing to let him play QB. He said the Pats wanted him to play either receiver or TE and he wanted no part of it.

I'm old enough to remember when Gannon was drafted in 1987. Either because they still had Grogan, Eason & Ramsey on the roster and wanted to find a place for the athletic rookie to play, or because the FO didn't feel that he was a legit NFL QB, Gannon was told that he would first play STs & FS, similar to Jack Mildren a decade-1/2 earlier. He then made it very clear in no uncertain terms that he would play no position other than QB for the NEP. Gannon was subsequently traded before TC even began that year.

Let's face it, Gannon will never, evah be a Patriots fan.

 

[RDS11]

That's a big part of your problem. You think completely bassackwards.

The principle behind the "Tuck Rule" is to eliminate officiating interpretation of actual events. Absent the rule, the human factor becomes the the judge on if it was a pass or fumble. By definition, inserting "human factor" is the best way to complicate the game.

"Tuck Rule" is black and white.

You prove it completely. You "think" it looked like a fumble (reference the duck comment).

You seriously think anyone wants an outcome determined by what you "think"?

I don't think the Tuck rule is as black and white as you say it is. On the few occasions it has been called, the call was right according to the Rule book.
But I don't think it has been called enough so we have a good enough sample of all the interpretation a referee can make out of that rule.

For example, if a QB is hit while passing, but his arm is not going forward, it's a fumble. Now, if he stops and ''reload'' and fumble while reloading, the tuck rule applies and it's an incomplete pass. Can anybody tell for sure what's the exact point between passing and reloading ?

What about a pump fake ? If the QB is hit while doing a pump fake and fumbles, does it make sense to you that it might be ruled an incomplete pass ?

Now, once the QB is reloading, what is the time after the movement has been completed that would be considered a fumble versus an incomplete pass ? Is it as soon as the ball is not moving, 1 second after the ball has stopped moving ? Brady takes 0.3 seconds to complete his throwing motion...you tell me it will always be obvious to differentiate when the reloading has been completed ? What if the QB is scrambling when the hit happens and the ball is really never re-set ?

I'm not debating the call, it's in the rule book and was correctly called in the Raiders game in the 2001 playoffs. But, if Brady himself thought it was a fumble at first (as per the 2001 America's game, Brady said he thought the game was over and it was Weis who said the call might be overturned) how can anyone outside the game says that it didn't look like a fumble ?

 

[E1Downey]

Thanks for the input on Sirius guys! It was very helpful, I'm not sure quite right now, but am strongly considering it!

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Thanks for the input on Sirius guys! It was very helpful, I'm not sure quite right now, but am strongly considering it!

Be a man. Make the decision.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Generally, I think Gannon tries to be objective and has to be taken seriously. The Pats are still giving up a lot of points and stopping the Juggernaut known as the Sanchize is hardly something on which to hang one's hat.

And, I always thought that the losing QB of the "Tuck Game" handled the disappointment of that call a lot more professionally than most of his teammates.

 

[larryo]

Be a man. Make the decision.

haha awesome

is there really a world where people don't have Sirius?

 

[reflexblue]

Thanks for the input on Sirius guys! It was very helpful, I'm not sure quite right now, but am strongly considering it!

Be Warned...... there are A LOT of commercials. You pay and you have to listen to more commercials than regular radio, at least it seems that way.

 

[Deus Irae]

haha awesome

is there really a world where people don't have Sirius?

Is there really a world where people pay for radio?