REAL FOOTBALL Thread

zitothebrave said:
Nope. That's not the rule.

It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that lands in the direction and the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver

I didn't see the play but throwing the ball over players way out of bounds happens frequently. If that's what happened it was a terrible call. 2 things that are almost never called for intentional grounding are sailing the ball over a receiver out of bounds and throwing through of the back o f the endzone.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the pass was intended to go to any receiver though. It seemed pretty clear htat he was just trying to get rid of the ball to avoid a sack. I believe that throwing it out of the endzone takes that out of hte equation though.
 
I will say, how bad did RG3 look yesterday? Some really off throws and really, really stupid decisions. And then he blames his teammates for not getting open? He's not been a very good leader and, like Kaep, has taken a huge step backwards this year. Maybe just sophomore slumps (I know it's Kaep's 3rd season). But those words from RG3 are really lame.
 
thethe said:
I don't believe the pass was intended to go to any receiver though. It seemed pretty clear htat he was just trying to get rid of the ball to avoid a sack. I believe that throwing it out of the endzone takes that out of hte equation though.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the play but if there was a receiver close to being under it as it went out of bounds I wouldn't call intentional grounding.
 
yeezus said:
I will say, how bad did RG3 look yesterday? Some really off throws and really, really stupid decisions. And then he blames his teammates for not getting open? He's not been a very good leader and, like Kaep, has taken a huge step backwards this year. Maybe just sophomore slumps (I know it's Kaep's 3rd season). But those words from RG3 are really lame.
Click to expand...

yeah, blaming your teammates is never a good thing. Redskins are a joke of a team anyway.
 
zitothebrave said:
I didn't see the play but if there was a receiver close to being under it as it went out of bounds I wouldn't call intentional grounding.
Click to expand...

So if the ball ends up in the stands but a receiver was under it when it crossed the out of bounds line you woulnd't call it intentional grounding?
 
yeezus said:
I will say, how bad did RG3 look yesterday? Some really off throws and really, really stupid decisions. And then he blames his teammates for not getting open? He's not been a very good leader and, like Kaep, has taken a huge step backwards this year. Maybe just sophomore slumps (I know it's Kaep's 3rd season). But those words from RG3 are really lame.
Click to expand...

Kaep always blames himself and thats a good thing because the majority of the blame is on him. But, the offensive line is not helping him right now.
 
RG3 tries to act humble in front of the camera, but I think he's showing that he's a bit of a diva. He kind of showed that in the off-season. He plays hard and reckless, but there's something in his personality that is beginning to show itself IMO.
 
thethe said:
Yeah, my last hope is that Kaep just needs a big time possession receiver like Crabtree to be successful. The defense has played great so the offense doesn't need to do much. 49ers need to go back to running more read option.
Click to expand...

You mean a big possession reciever like Boldin? He is the very definition of "BIG POSSESSION RECEIVER".
 
thethe said:
So if the ball ends up in the stands but a receiver was under it when it crossed the out of bounds line you woulnd't call it intentional grounding?
Click to expand...

Not according to the rules. If it's in either the direction or vicinity of an eligible receiver it's not intentional grounding. Even if it ends up in the stands. You can possibly read the rule as something else but I've never seen it called and seen the ball bombed out of bounds several times.
 
Tapate50 said:
You mean a big possession reciever like Boldin? He is the very definition of "BIG POSSESSION RECEIVER".
Click to expand...

He is also getting up there in age so I don't think he can be the primary guy that is focussed on. As a second or third option he is great but he can't beat double teams anymore. Hopefully crabtree can do that.
 
zitothebrave said:
Not according to the rules. If it's in either the direction or vicinity of an eligible receiver it's not intentional grounding. Even if it ends up in the stands. You can possibly read the rule as something else but I've never seen it called and seen the ball bombed out of bounds several times.
Click to expand...

I think thats silly if thats the rule because I think it should be that the receiver has a reasonable chance to make a play on the ball. If you want to throw the ball out you should be out of the pocket.
 
thethe said:
I think thats silly if thats the rule because I think it should be that the receiver has a reasonable chance to make a play on the ball. If you want to throw the ball out you should be out of the pocket.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Personally I think all throws past the line of scrimmage shouldn't be intentional grounding and I think it's overall a dumb rule, I understand it's implementation but given how protective the league is of QBs, might as well ditch it.
 
zitothebrave said:
Disagree. Personally I think all throws past the line of scrimmage shouldn't be intentional grounding and I think it's overall a dumb rule, I understand it's implementation but given how protective the league is of QBs, might as well ditch it.
Click to expand...

QB's would never get sacked if this happened or at least sack rates would drop tremendously.
 
Skins are a mess, the WR's hate Shanny and Garcon has threw RG3 under the bus multiple times already. People are leaking that Shanny wanted Tanny and not RG3....RG3 throwing everyone under the bus after the loss.

SHIP BE SINKING!
 
People were saying all these things about Cam last year and he turned it around. RG3 will do the same but they might need to go in a different direction with the head coach.
 
BRule said:
Skins are a mess, the WR's hate Shanny and Garcon has threw RG3 under the bus multiple times already. People are leaking that Shanny wanted Tanny and not RG3....RG3 throwing everyone under the bus after the loss.

SHIP BE SINKING!
Click to expand...

Shanahan has total control of the personnel. Anybody saying the Skins wanted Tanneyhill is just making **** up. The Skins could have sat back in the draft or traded down for Tanneyhill. (RG3 is significantly better than Tanneyhill)

Garcon plays as hard as anyone, but dude is a headcase. Thats pretty typical of NFL wide receivers nowadays.

Skins will be fine. We get 18 million in cap space back next year and hopefully a 100% RG3.
 
BRule said:
Cam > RG3
Click to expand...

Here are Cams numbers after 2 years (32 games):

59% comp 7.9 ypa 40 td 29 int

Here are RG3's numbers thru 25 games

63%, 7.7 ypa, 34 td 15 int

RG3 has been better and has played 10 of his 25 career games coming off major knee surgery and with a huge brace on his knee. Probably should wait till he's healthy to judge him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top