2 things lost in this faux controversy

0:39-:0:43 of this video. Think the Patriots will rue the day Belichick let Logan Ryan go, screwed Butler over and mortgaged all that cap space to Gilmore?

BOSE Sights and Sounds from Week 6 vs. New York Jets

.

shmessy said:

0:39-:0:43 of this video. Think the Patriots will rue the day Belichick let Logan Ryan go, screwed Butler over and mortgaged all that cap space to Gilmore?

BOSE Sights and Sounds from Week 6 vs. New York Jets

.

Click to expand...

No

RayClay said:

In your imagination Gilmore flies into the future in that last yard and a half and reverses his and Hogans flat out momentum?

Click to expand...

I don't have to imagine anything, The facts are clear though that he 'gave up'. Would punching the ball out and forcing a fumble not be a possibility here? It would

This thread is specifically on the 'never give up attitude' of some of the Pats players.

archstanton543 said:

Everyone loves to drag this play out as evidence of something. This is one play out of, what? Hundreds this guy plays a year. It's not indicative of anything. Now, if you had a bunch of plays where he does this then that would constitute a pattern of behavior. One play where he had a legit gripe with his safety that was supposed to be helping him doesn't mean he's a dog or locker room cancer or whatever.

Click to expand...

Yes, as evidence that effort CAN make a huge difference even when it seems unlikely to. Butlers vs Gilmore plays are perfect examples. Butler's effort had minimal likelihood of amounting to anything, but it did. If Gilmore (or anyone) gives up as he did on that specific play the reality is 0% chance of it leading to something good.

This thread is about that "ABOVE AND BEYOND, FIGHT TO THE END" effort so in this post I see this play as extremely relevant.

brdmaverick said:

Yes, as evidence that effort CAN make a huge difference even when it seems unlikely to. Butlers vs Gilmore plays are perfect examples. Butler's effort had minimal likelihood of amounting to anything, but it did. If Gilmore (or anyone) gives up as he did on that specific play the reality is 0% chance of it leading to something good.

This thread is about that "ABOVE AND BEYOND, FIGHT TO THE END" effort so in this post I see this play as extremely relevant.

Click to expand...

You're naive if you think that CB's (and WR's) don't give 100% on every play....Even on the Pats. You site one example of Gilmore "giving up" when he played for another team (no examples from his time on the Pats, oddly enough) and one example of Bulter giving 100% when he (and just about every CB) doesn't give his all on every single play.

archstanton543 said:

You're naive if you think that CB's (and WR's) don't give 100% on every play....Even on the Pats. You site one example of Gilmore "giving up" when he played for another team (no examples from his time on the Pats, oddly enough) and one example of Bulter giving 100% when he (and just about every CB) doesn't give his all on every single play.

Click to expand...

Wow, I know everyone's mindset when they go online is to formulate a contrarian opinion (b/c it's fun after all), but sometimes the lengths that people go to in order to create this debate is laughable.

So despite clear evidence of a player giving up (or at least NOT giving maximum effort), you suggest that I am naive for even thinking that these WRs and CBs may not give 100% on EVERY play. I think this is clear case of you being naive for thinking they do. So to be clear, you are suggesting that Gilmore gave maximum effort on that play? You must, right? After all to suggest otherwise would be to contradict yourself.

Also, you find it odd that there are no examples of Gilmore as a Pat. First of all, I didn't look, but even if there wasn't one I wouldn't be surprised. After all, one could say "that's what makes the Bills the Bills and the Pats the Pats. On the Pats there is an expectation that you finish plays."

Let's put it another way.......if that play that was pointed out happened with Gilmore in a Pats uniform, do you think Belichick would be happy with him? No, and neither should we. That goes to the OP's point that on the Pats it's the little things like "finishing plays" that can help separate the Pats from the rest of the league.

In fact, I don't even necessarily bash on Gilmore for that play. Most players would not go all out all the time. Just like every offensive player doesn't chase down a player who intercepted the ball. Not everyone is Ben Watson. THe point is that when you are on the Pats it appears as though it's mandated (or at least instilled in them)...so yes, I'm hoping Gilmore has caught that work ethic.

brdmaverick said:

Wow, I know everyone's mindset when they go online is to formulate a contrarian opinion (b/c it's fun after all), but sometimes the lengths that people go to in order to create this debate is laughable.

So despite clear evidence of a player giving up (or at least NOT giving maximum effort), you suggest that I am naive for even thinking that these WRs and CBs may not give 100% on EVERY play. I think this is clear case of you being naive for thinking they do. So to be clear, you are suggesting that Gilmore gave maximum effort on that play? You must, right? After all to suggest otherwise would be to contradict yourself.

Also, you find it odd that there are no examples of Gilmore as a Pat. First of all, I didn't look, but even if there wasn't one I wouldn't be surprised. After all, one could say "that's what makes the Bills the Bills and the Pats the Pats. On the Pats there is an expectation that you finish plays."

Let's put it another way.......if that play that was pointed out happened with Gilmore in a Pats uniform, do you think Belichick would be happy with him? No, and neither should we. That goes to the OP's point that on the Pats it's the little things like "finishing plays" that can help separate the Pats from the rest of the league.

In fact, I don't even necessarily bash on Gilmore for that play. Most players would not go all out all the time. Just like every offensive player doesn't chase down a player who intercepted the ball. Not everyone is Ben Watson. THe point is that when you are on the Pats it appears as though it's mandated (or at least instilled in them)...so yes, I'm hoping Gilmore has caught that work ethic.

Click to expand...

You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying people are cherry picking one play from when he was on the Bills as some kind of proof that he's dogging it. All I'm saying is that that's an unfair thing to do.

I'm sure BB is aware the of infamous play in question. The guy (and the guys around him) do their homework. If that one play was indicative of his work ethic, would they have signed him? Sure, they have missed before on some guys (Kony Ealy comes to mind) but I have a hard time believing that they'd sign a guy they scouted not only as a free agent but also twice a year as an opponent for the last few years knowing that he dogs it out on the field.

brdmaverick said:

Wow, I know everyone's mindset when they go online is to formulate a contrarian opinion (b/c it's fun after all), but sometimes the lengths that people go to in order to create this debate is laughable.

So despite clear evidence of a player giving up (or at least NOT giving maximum effort), you suggest that I am naive for even thinking that these WRs and CBs may not give 100% on EVERY play. I think this is clear case of you being naive for thinking they do. So to be clear, you are suggesting that Gilmore gave maximum effort on that play? You must, right? After all to suggest otherwise would be to contradict yourself.

Also, you find it odd that there are no examples of Gilmore as a Pat. First of all, I didn't look, but even if there wasn't one I wouldn't be surprised. After all, one could say "that's what makes the Bills the Bills and the Pats the Pats. On the Pats there is an expectation that you finish plays."

Let's put it another way.......if that play that was pointed out happened with Gilmore in a Pats uniform, do you think Belichick would be happy with him? No, and neither should we. That goes to the OP's point that on the Pats it's the little things like "finishing plays" that can help separate the Pats from the rest of the league.

In fact, I don't even necessarily bash on Gilmore for that play. Most players would not go all out all the time. Just like every offensive player doesn't chase down a player who intercepted the ball. Not everyone is Ben Watson. THe point is that when you are on the Pats it appears as though it's mandated (or at least instilled in them)...so yes, I'm hoping Gilmore has caught that work ethic.

Click to expand...

Gilmore plays to the whistle. Butler plays past the whistle. Sometimes that gets him in trouble, but oftentimes it yields positive extra results.

Butler doesn't have the physical gifts of Gilmore who, once he hopefully learns the Pats system (outside of simple man coverage), should be a very positive (but expensive) piece to the secondary. Butler came in as a rookie UDFA and had the system locked down by the very first preseason game in August 2014.

I know. I was there at Fedex Field. He was one of two players wearing #29 for the Pats that night (I believe the other one was Jonas Gray) and my nephew and I left that stadium that night talking only about "Who the hell was the defensive 29? it was like he knew the Redskins pass routes before every play."

The interception in SB 49 was incredible, but him jumping the route on the biggest stage makes total sense in that context. Butler has superior IQ for the Patriots' system. There's a reason why the Pats felt confident in letting Revis walk the next season.


.

1960Pats said:

Harmon gave up on the Kearse catch.

Click to expand...

He didn't "give up". He incorrectly but reasonably jumped over Kearse because he thought the pass was incomplete and didn't want to get penalized for hitting the receiver.

brdmaverick said:

I don't have to imagine anything, The facts are clear though that he 'gave up'. Would punching the ball out and forcing a fumble not be a possibility here? It would

This thread is specifically on the 'never give up attitude' of some of the Pats players.

Click to expand...

@QuantumMechanic just curious what about this statement you disagree with


I actually agree with your assessment of the Harmon on Kearse play in which I think Harmon didn't want to get penalized for a late hit on a play he thought was dead, but there is now way you can analyze the Gilmore on Hogan play as anything but giving up.

40yrpatsfan said:

The pylon only matters in the sense that it establishes he scored, not out at the 2" line. My point is where was the fumble? there was no fumble. Ball never hit the ground, therefore he never lost possession. No different than if he tossed it to himself from hand to hand as he crossed the GL. Are you saying that because Butler touched it, that makes it a fumble?

Click to expand...

This has all been rehashed in the ASJ thread. But simply, losing control doesn't mean the ball hits the ground. When a QB fumbles or anyone for that matter while going to the ground, they look to see the exact moment the player loses possession. Not when the ball hits the ground. According to the rule, ASJ lost possession as he was going to the ground. The pylon is at the edge of boinds, he fell onto the pylon out of bounds therefore not establishing a knee or two feet or an elbow while having regained possession. Anywhere else on the field it would be a dead ball, flying through the goal line while losing possession and landing out of bounds makes it a touchback.

brdmaverick said:

I don't have to imagine anything, The facts are clear though that he 'gave up'. Would punching the ball out and forcing a fumble not be a possibility here? It would

This thread is specifically on the 'never give up attitude' of some of the Pats players.

Click to expand...

Hogan could have intentionally fell down and he still would have scored due to his momentum.

There is no possible play Gilmore could have made that wouldn't have occurred in the end zone.

You might consider taking an introductory physics class.

yukon cornelius said:

1) butler didn't give up on the play and punched it out

2) both butler and harmon clearly knew exactly what happened and both knew the rule.....they adamantly called it even while the TD sign was given


to me that says more about this team then anything else

Click to expand...

Another great point. Of course, this happens more often than the average fan thinks.

If you want to debate whether a fumble out of the endzone should be a touchback rather than say, placed at the 1 yard line (honestly I'd be fine with that) so be it.

But to say the NFL should selectively apply the rules is just inane.

40yrpatsfan said:

I can't see how what happened can even be called a fumble. It moved through the air from 1 hand to the other, never hit the ground. Butler dislodged it but the runner got control of it again, then landed on the pylon. Calling it a fumble makes no sense. If a runner were in the open and at the goal line tossed it from 1 hand to the other it would still be a TD.

Click to expand...

On game day it took me forever to even grok what the issue was.

I was like, he had possession, he ran for some time toward the pylon with the ball in possession.

Like you I was thinking "how is that a fumble," because the ball certainly isn't in the other team's possession. However, evidently, you have to have possession when you cross the goal line.

So imagine this scenario:

Butler punches the ball lose, and instead of playing volleyball against himself, the runner fumbles it and it hits the ground and bounces out of bounds over the goalline. We both know the rule applies there.

Here's another scenario: Seferian-Jenkins, with nobody around him, spikes the ball on the 1, and it bounces out of the end-zone (back or side.) We both know he doesn't get that touch down, even though the ball wasn't punched out. I think that's also a touchback, because the ball didn't go out on the 1, for example - it went out of the end zone. Somebody check me on this, but it seems like the same basic rule.

What's "new" here is that the ball is bobbling when the runner crosses the goal line, i.e., nobody has possession but the ball never hits the ground. What makes it a slam dunk (logically, although the rule might not be logical,) is that our guy punched it out.

Where I'm still confused (and I have 4 more pages to read), is what would be the call if he bobbled it on his own, after clearly having possession... still a touchback? I think so, but can somebody confirm?

Anybody? Bueller?

PS, on the never-quit-ness and football IQ of Butler? Dang. Big role in locking down a divisional win based on those 2 traits.

Apparently the one thing that you don't want to do with Butler is make him feel like he's not playing up to snuff. Burned on the circus catch? He'll remember that rub-route. Down on his production for the season? He'll come up big when we need it. Okay, just 2 instances... but I think this is a tendency (like players being "clutch" on offense... but it might be especially activated when he's "looking bad" in general.) Maybe everybody has that gear and I'm isolating 2 instances that support its prevalence in Butler's game.

PatsFanInVa said:

Where I'm still confused (and I have 4 more pages to read), is what would be the call if he bobbled it on his own, after clearly having possession... still a touchback? I think so, but can somebody confirm?

Click to expand...

Yes, if he lost control of it himself instead of getting it punched out (and everything else about that play stays the same), it would still be a touchback.

PatsFanInVa said:

Here's another scenario: Seferian-Jenkins, with nobody around him, spikes the ball on the 1, and it bounces out of the end-zone (back or side.) We both know he doesn't get that touch down, even though the ball wasn't punched out. I think that's also a touchback, because the ball didn't go out on the 1, for example - it went out of the end zone. Somebody check me on this, but it seems like the same basic rule.

Click to expand...

It is. Touchback and the ball goes over to the defense.

PatsFanInVa said:

Where I'm still confused (and I have 4 more pages to read), is what would be the call if he bobbled it on his own, after clearly having possession... still a touchback? I think so, but can somebody confirm?

Anybody? Bueller?

Click to expand...

The ballcarrier's reason for fumbling is irrelevant to the rule. So it's a touchback and the ball goes over to the defense.

RayClay said:

Hogan could have intentionally fell down and he still would have scored due to his momentum.

There is no possible play Gilmore could have made that wouldn't have occurred in the end zone.

You might consider taking an introductory physics class.

Click to expand...

You people are a joke..........HE GAVE UP!!!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE....Why oh why people try to either deny this or justify it is just beyond me. Am I saying the guy is the worst player in the world and does this all the time? No

I happened to be watching this play recently and it really struck me as odd that someone would give up so soon (especially when he is so close to the ball carrier). You rarely see this and I felt it relevant that since someone happened to bring up Butler's effort.

The video is absolutely beyond dispute though that he didn't give max effort. Go ahead, keep telling yourself he had ZERO play on Hogan. Not only is that NOT true it's crazy that you are just perfectly ok with him not even trying.

Are you people related to Gilmore or something? Why are people apologizing for him on this play? If your defense was 'this play was an anomaly then I'd accept that but to try to justify the play is silly'.....it's all in the video don't try to deny what your eyes are seeing just because he wears a Pats jersey now

RayClay said:

Hogan could have intentionally fell down and he still would have scored due to his momentum.

There is no possible play Gilmore could have made that wouldn't have occurred in the end zone.

You might consider taking an introductory physics class.

Click to expand...

I'm in such disbelief over the Gilmore apologists on this play that I have to post again to remind everyone what you are defending and perhaps educate you on the physics of the situation.

Look at this picture. Gilmore is SOOOO close to the play that part of his foot is not visible because Hogan's foot is blocking it. And no, that's not the goaline that Hogan has yet to pass, THAT IS THE 5 YARD LINE!!!!!!

Can you honestly look at this picture and say that Gilmore is better served to stop to berate teammates instead of finish out the play? I mean jeez, again, I am just dumbfounded by the lengths that people go to in order to create a contrarian point of view.

brdmaverick said:

Are you people related to Gilmore or something? Why are people apologizing for him on this play? If your defense was 'this play was an anomaly then I'd accept that but to try to justify the play is silly'.....it's all in the video don't try to deny what your eyes are seeing just because he wears a Pats jersey now

Click to expand...

Because you're siting one example as proof of his overall mentality on the field. This is especially unfair considering players across the NFL don't give 100% on every play, including players on your team.

He's the new guy on your team and you're targeting him as the problem when it's communication breakdowns across the defense that have them playing so lousy.