Idle thoughts - the "3rd and 18" edition

[PatsDeb]

FWIW, Peter King in today's MMQB agrees that it should not have been a fumble.

LOL, I don't think that is worth much, particularly around here. In any event, I am glad we won the game and are not stuck with "the refs screwed us!" as our off-season mantra.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I agree with you that Lewis is gathering a loose ball. But this also means that a loss of possession has occurred. Lewis then traps the ball against his thigh and he is heading the ground. I don't think there is any debating this. But possession in this instance isn't verified by Lewis securing the ball to his side. He must maintain it as hits the ground. The knee being down is irrelevant because re-possession has not occurred. This is surviving the ground. He didn't so its a fumble.

I do not think that is correct but I am not certain.

 

[Ring 6]

how about a screen to see if it gains decent yardage..then go for it. Kneeling is inexcusable

Even run the ball

 

[SacPete1]

I do not think that is correct but I am not certain.

Fair enough brotha. We'll end it there and I look forward to reading your posts as I always do.

 

[patchick]

on paper, the defensive front seven in particular looks like one of the weakest in the league

oh dear, quoting myself...

Just thought of a little mental exercise: Which of the Pats' front 7 defenders last night would be starters on the Jaguars? (Keep in mind that Dareus and Fowler come off the bench for them.)

 

[bormio]

Rex Burkhead is made of Glass. As great as he's looked everytime he gets tackled he comes up injured. Please Activate Gilly next game BB. I would not extend Burkhead either he spends too much time in the tub.

You realize that has also been said before about Amendola.

 

[maineman209]

Interesting analysis (Twitter thread) here from Warren Sharp of the Jags' play-calling and clock-management in Q4 vis-a-vis his own analysis of their 2016 season. Also touches on the Pats using 11 personnel.

 

[p8ryts]

Yeah.. I'm not buying that stat.

The official line has the Pats with 39 pass attempts, 16 run attempts and 3 kneel downs. The Patriots ran 29 offensive plays in the 1st half and 31 offensive plays in the 2nd half, not including the 3 kneel downs or the penalties. So, I have no earthly idea where the 42/22 that @UptownPatsFan posted came from.

And I have no idea what ProFootballFocus was watching because Brady was hit more than twice and pressured more than twice.
Patriots-Jaguars Takeaways: Defensive Game Plan Took Time To Succeed

Regardless of the statistics. I thought the OL did a good job!

 

[DaBruinz]

Andy, I agree with you that Lewis is gathering a loose ball. But this also means that a loss of possession has occurred. Lewis then traps the ball against his thigh and he is heading the ground. I don't think there is any debating this. But possession in this instance isn't verified by Lewis securing the ball to his side. He must maintain it as hits the ground. The knee being down is irrelevant because re-possession has not occurred. This is surviving the ground. He didn't so its a fumble.

Lewis' ass is on the ground with the ball trapped against his hip. How is that not possession?

 

[SlowGettingUp]

And the reason he regained possession OOB is because he didn't survive the ground. His knee hit in bounds. If he had survived the ground at that point it would have been a TD. But because he didn't, and didn't regain possession until OOB in the EZ, it was a touchback.

Likewise, the defender had a valid fumble recovery because Lewis lost the ball, creating a loose ball, was trying to re-control it but didn't survive the ground (because the defender stole it from him before he could get the necessary control over it), therefore the ball was still considered a loose ball, therefore Lewis was not down by contact, therefore a fumble recovery.

This is what footballzebras thinks too. Lewis had possession, then lost it and did not regain control and therefor possession before he was down.

Actually the more interesting feature of that play call was whether the guy that stripped the ball should have been called down by contact even though he wasn't in fact touched. Here again zebras thinks he was correctly called down by contact because he took the ball from Lewis's hands - that constitutes a "touch."

 

[sieglo]

I thought the Lewis fumble was called correctly. He lost control and although he appeared to have re-secured it, it was momentary and he didn't survive the ground and as we have seen, if you lose control as you are going to the ground, you have to regain control and maintain it all the way through when coming to the ground, not just for a moment (ASJ play comes to mind).

That's if you're a receiver, not a runner.

Ground can't cause a fumble if another part of the runner is touched down (knee, ass, elbow, whatever.)

 

[QuantumMechanic]

That's if you're a receiver, not a runner.

Ground can't cause a fumble if another part of the runner is touched down (knee, ass, elbow, whatever.)

Ground can't cause fumble when a touched player hits the ground with possession. Which Lewis didn't have.

 

[n6249c]

Interesting analysis (Twitter thread) here from Warren Sharp of the Jags' play-calling and clock-management in Q4 vis-a-vis his own analysis of their 2016 season. Also touches on the Pats using 11 personnel.

That was brutal. And very thorough and well explained.

 

[sieglo]

Ground can't cause fumble when a touched player hits the ground with possession. Which Lewis didn't have.

I guess that's where we differ. He had the ball pinned to his leg and was in control from my perspective.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I guess that's where we differ. He had the ball pinned to his leg and was in control from my perspective.

Yes, that is where we differ.

 

[patchick]

Lewis' ass is on the ground with the ball trapped against his hip. How is that not possession?

My sense was that the ball was still moving -- that the instant of super-slo-mo that looked still was illusory.

In the end, it was probably close enough that the call on the field couldn't have been reversed either way.

 

[maineman209]

I guess that's where we differ. He had the ball pinned to his leg and was in control from my perspective.

I'm honestly not certain. I don't think there was "compelling evidence" either way. No matter which way the original call on the field had gone, it wouldn't hav been overturned.

However, regardless which way the possession had gone, both Lewis and Jacks were down by contact.

 

[jimnance]

"Only on patsfans.com" category :
After one of the greatest, most thrilling comebacks in the illustrious history of the Patriots, a game filled with tons of great storylines and drama and y'all are arguing over whether Dion Lewis fumbled that ball.
Seriously, who gives a sheet?

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I'm honestly not certain. I don't think there was "compelling evidence" either way. No matter which way the original call on the field had gone, it wouldn't hav been overturned.

However, regardless which way the possession had gone, both Lewis and Jacks were down by contact.

And yet, didn't either Romo or Nantz mention when watching the replay that they wish the ref's didn't blow the whistle and let the play continue i.e let the Jack run all the way for a TD?

 

[maineman209]

And yet, didn't either Romo or Nantz mention when watching the replay that they wish the ref's didn't blow the whistle and let the play continue i.e let the Jack run all the way for a TD?

I think that was Nantz.