NFL GAME DAY DISCUSSION AFCDG: Buffalo Bills at Denver Broncos

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

This is where I’m at for Super Bowl scenarios in the AFC:

Patriots win: we have a chance against anybody. Favored against the Bears, toss up/ slight underdogs with the Rams. Underdogs to Seattle, but can win.

Texans: I think they’d be a toss up against Chicago. Underdogs to the Rams, but have a chance. I have a hard time seeing them beat Seattle, but maybe a very slim chance. Seattle just feels like an enhanced version of them.

Broncos: I think they’d be underdogs to everyone in the Super Bowl. But can beat Chicago. Very slim chance they beat the Rams. They’re absolutely not beating Seattle.

Seahawks might be the best team in the NFL this year. At least the NFC. Though, the same could be said about the Patriots first Super Bowl win against Rams and we know how that went

 

[Triumph]

Would BB go there?

Would certainly make things interesting.

BB would at least field a defense and formulate games plans that work more often than not.

McDermott could not stop Nix after failing to do so vs Mahomes and Burrow.

 

[VrabelJr]

Cooks has had a strange career.

Drafted by the Saints in the 1st round, traded him to the Pats one year later.

Pats kept him for one season and also traded him.

Cooks wasn’t a bust, so why did no one want to keep him?

Cooks was on NO for 3 years before being traded. You might be using one of those websites that does the dumb thing of only showing stats for the last 10 seasons rather than entire careers.

 

[Triumph]

You beat me to it lol.

He is the anti clutch guy. Bad things happen when he is on your team.

I read that Brady wasnt enamored with Cooks and thats why the Pats bailed after 1 season of him.

 

[p8ryts]

This is right. Cooks has to maintain control when he hits the ground, which he does. The defender has control too, but I don't see that as Cooks lost control.

He might have a control, but he didn't have the ball.

 

[VrabelJr]

I'm not going to say Denver's defense was dominant, but from the 4th quarter on they finally were able to get pressure with only 3 or 4 DL. Buffalo's OL was out of gas despite having the ball for 40+ minutes. Might be the altitude but running 70+ plays in one game is just hard. That's a bit of an overlooked detail that falls on the coaching but was also maybe inevitable due to Allen turning the ball over so much.

 

[moosekill]

They never even reviewed the Cooks Int play. Maybe it was a pick. But why not reviewed it? It's a huge game and it decides the game.

All turnovers are reviewed.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Cooks has had a strange career.

Drafted by the Saints in the 1st round, traded him to the Pats one year later.

Pats kept him for one season and also traded him.

Cooks wasn’t a bust, so why did no one want to keep him?

It's because he's always been soft which doesn't show up on the stat sheet. He hates any sorts of contact and will drop the pass 9 times out of 10 attempts if he senses a defender near him. He's a fine player, but not good enough to pay him that amount of money as a top WR. That's why teams keep passing him around - buyer's remorse.

Cooks had over 1,000 in NE, but it was a struggle for him as he didn't fit. I remember throughout the season him throwing his hands up in confusion when the play didn't go his way. Kind of like what DB's do when they get cooked, they fake an injury. That dumb play at the beginning of the Super Bowl with him getting knocked out was the nail in the coffin for him. BB wasn't going to pay him.

Dropped a go ahead TD in the Super Bowl one year later allowing Jason McCourty to break up a pass.

 

[Uptown]

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

He might have a control, but he didn't have the ball.

The rule does not say that Cooks has to have sole control. Two people can have control at the same time - it happens commonly in football when defenders are trying to rip the ball out. The rule says Cooks has to have control and survive the ground. Cooks had control when he hit the ground. Does hitting the ground mean Cooks survived the ground? I think so, but others think Cooks has to maintain control after hitting the ground and moving some.

 

[Triumph]

Not arguing that, and he didn’t argue the call.

It never actually comes down to 1 play with losing, yet here we are again.

Allen gave Denver 3 points with that candle pins for cash bowling move prior to the half. Cooks is a monster RB with a fumbling problem.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

It never actually comes down to 1 play with losing, yet here we are again.

Allen gave Denver 3 points with that candle pins for cash bowling move prior to the half. Cooks is a monster RB with a fumbling problem.

I agree. I think the refs got it wrong, but after 5 turnovers the Bills did not deserve to get the call from the refs. Hold onto the damn ball.

 

[Triumph]

Different argument, with a metric **** ton of absolute relevance.

just not in terms of a lopsided top

Turnovers killed the Bills.

5 turnovers.

Bills converted 10 of 15 3rd downs for 66%.
Bills won time of possession - 41 minutes to Denvers 29 minutes.
Bills rushed for 183 yards.
Buffalo had 5 penalties and the PI call was legit.

 

[bormio]

All turnovers are reviewed.

They are reviewed in New York - there was no signal for the referee to review it - in other words - they thought the call was correct

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

I agree with everything you've said except I haven't seen video evidence of him losing control.

I'm watching NFL Gameday Morning right now. They just did a detailed segment on the play and showed it several times. It certainly looks like when he hits the ground the ball is not completely in his hands.
I have no dog in this fight, but the ball certainly moved when he hit the ground.

 

[Triumph]

There is no amount of time in the rule.

You must survive the ground.

That takes longer than 1 second.

 

[Lansdowne]

Looks like you photoshopped the play from the Pats-Giants Super Bowl with the Denver player starring in the Richard Seymour role.

Ugh, that play still pisses me off. **** Mike Carey for not calling that when he saw it. Guy had Seymour in a choke hold.

 

[Mack Herron]

 

[DoubleDeluxe]

A ball can be in control and ripped out. Happens all the time and the ruling is the runner was down.

And there is differentiator, he was not a RUNNER.
He was in the process of completing the catch going to the ground.
1 feet, 2 feet, one knee...makes no difference.
He has to survive the ground and maintain possession.
I just watched the video several times, the angle from the Bills end of the field clearly shows the ball move away from his hands as soon as he hit the ground.

 

[Kargetina]

For anyone who still doesn't understand why the Cooks play was the correct ruling, this is the exact same situation, James ISN'T a runner, he hasn't made a football move, just like Cooks wasn't a runner because he never made a football move. If James was a runner, this would be a TD, regardless of the bobbling of the ball. Just carrying the ball across the goal line would have been good enough for a TD, no matter what happened after that.



If you're not a runner, having your knee down, elbow down, etc...is irrelevant, because without the football move, you're NOT considered to have possession of the ball. It's the exact same rule for fumbles. If a player catches a ball but doesn't make a football move and he gets the ball swatted out of his hands, it's an incomplete pass. If he makes a football move, and the ball is swatted, it's a fumble and a live ball.

James' catch didn't count because during the process of completing the catch he lost control of the ball. The process of completing the catch counts when the play is over, i.e the player isn't moving any longer. Cooks never completed his catch because he was still rolling on the ground when the ball was snatched from his arms.