Andy Reid is a terrible head football coach

[rabblerouser]

Andy Reid got depantsed in the Super Bowl by Bruce Arians.

Bruce ****ing Arians and Tom ****ing Brady.

Well, you see, Andy Reid is an offensive genius, and how dare we question Andy Reid's genius in not running the ball and not utilizing the screen pass in the face of an epically brutal pass rush, a patchwork offensive line and a QB with a hurt toe?

How dare we question his geniusness?
__________________

Oh, and Spags? The "great Brady Killer"? They had his defense figured out by the 2nd quarter and he couldn't adjust it. He was Bob Sutton Jr.

[Giant Octopodes]

Originally Posted by Coogs

Here you go. Your take is weak.

-url snipped-

That link doesn't work for me, so I have no idea what you're trying to reference with it. Does that contain the video? If so cool, props, you can see for yourself if my claims are accurate. As to the 2nd part, is there a specific fact you dispute, or do you just disagree in general as I predicted?

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes

That link doesn't work for me, so I have no idea what you're trying to reference with it. Does that contain the video? If so cool, props, you can see for yourself if my claims are accurate. As to the 2nd part, is there a specific fact you dispute, or do you just disagree in general as I predicted?

It in post #18 of the Brady receiving 27 PI calls. It works there. I disagree, because Evans falls because he catches his toe, not because of the hands from Breeland.

[Giant Octopodes]

Originally Posted by Coogs

It in post #18 of the Brady receiving 27 PI calls. It works there. I disagree, because Evans falls because he catches his toe, not because of the hands from Breeland.

That's not true though, his foot lands flat after that, the step he does not complete is the one with the leg that is slapped by Breeland. It doesn't really matter though, because the question is not "would he have tripped anyway" or "would he have caught the ball anyway", the question is "did impermissible contact occur. Unless you believe the diving ass slap was permissible, the answer to that is "yes", right? So the question then becomes "was the diving ass slap permissible", and regardless of whether you believe it is, can you at least acknowledge that someone might answer no to that, and call it accordingly, as such it was not a "phantom" call?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes

Would you agree that if the 1st ball was indeed well within Mike Evan's catch radius had he not been tripped, as I claim, and if the defender did indeed slap Mike Evan's ass and thigh as he was falling, while not playing the ball, while Mike Evans was still playing the ball, such incidental contact would be impermissible according to the rules?

Um, incidental contact is not PI. Ever.

That's why it's ruled incidental contact.

[Kman34]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Um, incidental contact is not PI. Ever.

That's why it's ruled incidental contact.

And it was a ****ing soccer plop by Evans..

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes

That's not true though, his foot lands flat after that, the step he does not complete is the one with the leg that is slapped by Breeland. It doesn't really matter though, because the question is not "would he have tripped anyway" or "would he have caught the ball anyway", the question is "did impermissible contact occur. Unless you believe the diving ass slap was permissible, the answer to that is "yes", right? So the question then becomes "was the diving ass slap permissible", and regardless of whether you believe it is, can you at least acknowledge that someone might answer no to that, and call it accordingly, as such it was not a "phantom" call?

I'm gonna tap out here. Not because I think you are right either, because I don't.

[Giant Octopodes]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Um, incidental contact is not PI. Ever.

That's why it's ruled incidental contact.

:Facepalm:

That's literally not the rules. Read the rules bro. Can't link them for you but already quoted the incidental part verbatim, and they can be freely accessed and read online. Only permissible when both players are playing the ball, or neither is looking for it, which was not the case during this contact.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes

That's literally not the rules. Read the rules bro. Can't link them for you but already quoted the incidental part verbatim, and they can be freely accessed and read online. Only permissible when both players are playing the ball, or neither is looking for it, which was not the case during this contact.

Breeland was not playing the player, he was falling down. He didn't initiate contact before he fell so there's no way to say he wasn't playing the ball.

Do you Patriot apologists ever get tired of being douches?

[Giant Octopodes]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Breeland was not playing the player, he was falling down. He didn't initiate contact before he fell so there's no way to say he wasn't playing the ball.

Do you Patriot apologists ever get tired of being douches?

And this is why generally speaking I don't dive into discussions of specific plays with folks who are likely to be biased. The goalposts just moved from "incidental contact is always permissible" to "he didn't initiate contact before he fell". Note the rules don't have a provision where incidental contact is permissible when both are playing, neither is looking for it, or one of them is falling, but whatever, I'll tap out here as well. When knowing and following the rules makes you a dousche, there's no productive conversation to be had.

[swifty32661]

Originally Posted by TEX

SO much dumbassery here. Period.

I stand by what I said, and what you think is irrelevant. Mahomes is one of the only QB's that can make that throw. Again, it's Mahomes and not Reid on why they won last year's SB.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes

And this is why generally speaking I don't dive into discussions of specific plays with folks who are likely to be biased. The goalposts just moved from "incidental contact is always permissible" to "he didn't initiate contact before he fell". Note the rules don't have a provision where incidental contact is permissible when both are playing, neither is looking for it, or one of them is falling, but whatever, I'll tap out here as well. When knowing and following the rules makes you a dousche, there's no productive conversation to be had.

I didn't move the goalposts, I addressed your specific argument.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes

So please bear in mind that I do not expect you to believe any of this. But I want to throw it out there for your consideration anyway.

1) Evans was tripped at the 23, the ball hit the dirt at the 19. Had he been standing, he's 6'5". His arms are 35" long and he has a 37" vertical. A ball can be up to 12' in the air and be catchable. Ignoring loss of momentum, the ball landed within 12' of him, so no. Were he not tripped, that ball is by no means uncatchable. It lands in frame on the slow mo. And when in doubt, the rule is not err on the side of probably uncatchable.

2) The tangling of the feet is indeed incidental contact, which is permissible when Either both players are playing the ball, or neither is playing the ball. So the tangling of the feet, totally fine. However, not all incidental contact is permissible. The rule is, "Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball." Once the feet were tangled, the defender looked forward, and as he tripped dove out, slapped Mike Evan's ass and thigh, and tripped him up by doing so. As he did so, he was not playing the ball, while Mike Evans was still looking for the ball. As such, it does not matter if that contact was incidental. It would still be impermissible contact and as such pass interference.

I can address the 2nd one as well if you like, but again I think there's little point. I don't even know if you have access to the video and can review my statements for accuracy. Would you agree that if the 1st ball was indeed well within Mike Evan's catch radius had he not been tripped, as I claim, and if the defender did indeed slap Mike Evan's ass and thigh as he was falling, while not playing the ball, while Mike Evans was still playing the ball, such incidental contact would be impermissible according to the rules?

Well, there's obviously no point... you've clearly pinned me/us as Chiefs fan who can't be objective enough to call it as it is, and while we all have our biases, we aren't talking each other into the things we are or aren't seeing on those plays.

Evans tripped because he hit Breeland's leg in his stride while they were both looking back for the ball... that's all there is to it. He was already falling when Breeland reached out, whether that was intentional or to catch his fall. And then Evans continues falling down because his leg got caught under Breeland going to the ground. And I don't think Evans tracked that ball very well.... yeah, he can cover almost 10 yards in a second, but if you go to youtube, the ball drops within ~.25-.5 seconds after he's going down.... it would have been a helluva catch. That's why I said "probably" not catchable.

It was incidental contact initiated by Evans.... Evans can trip over his own feet, Breeland's feet, just fall down.... there was no contact initiated by Breeland to cause Evans to trip and they were both looking back for the ball at the time Evans tripped and caused them both to fall.

I've seen the replays and have slowed them down on youtube prior to today... I've never been above calling it as it is because it's completely out of my control.

I don't WANT the NFL to have such incompetent refs or to think there's conspiracy things going on or whatever... and it certainly doesn't bruise my pride or ego or whatever the reasons are people can't be objective about their team, because again, I have no control over it.

Teams get beat sometimes and even embarrassed, and the completely unacceptably horrible calls in that game were only one reason (granted, a huge reason).... and if you're looking for seemingly less bias when it comes to those calls, listen to Simms or any of the other national media guys who were calling it for what it was, too.

Outside of correcting my obvious error with the 3rd down play, the rest doesn't even really matter in terms of the original point.... Reid was trying to be aggressive and I thought it was a great strategy. You can call the first DPI completely legit as far as I'm concerned, and they still should have only gotten 3 out of that possession (but, I guess Evans could also have super human hops to come down with that pass in the end zone ).

[PAChiefsGuy]

I wish you conspriacy theorists would stop blaming the refs. They weren't good but like I said even if they were Chiefs weren't winning that game with the way our oline was playing.

Chiefs lost to the better team that day. It sucks but it's reality it happens guys. Brady has lost SBs and plenty of playoff games, so has MJ and so was Grezkty, LeBron etc.

Chiefs aren't going to win SB every year just because we have Mahomes. Deal with it and stop your crying. Chiefs can learn from this and get better. We'll be back hell maybe next year. We already are the SB favorites.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

I wish you conspriacy theorists would stop blaming the refs. They weren't good but like I said even if they were Chiefs weren't winning that game with the way our oline was playing.

Chiefs lost to the better team that day. It sucks but it's reality it happens guys. Brady has lost SBs and plenty of playoff games, so has MJ and so was Grezkty, LeBron etc.

Chiefs aren't going to win SB every year just because we have Mahomes. Deal with it and stop your crying. Chiefs can learn from this and get better. We'll be back hell maybe next year. We already are the SB favorites.

It can be more than one thing... and it's almost always more than one thing.

Many people here have already said they probably lose that game anyway, despite the refs, including myself several times.

But, I don't know how anyone can look at those calls and say they didn't have an impact on a game that could have been within one possession at the beginning of the 2nd half..... yeah, they don't win that game 100 times out of 100 if they only score 9 points, but being within arms reach obviously changes everything downstream in the 2nd half.

I understand the years and years of people complaining about the refs after EVERY loss has made for a 'boy that cried wolf', so there's this knee jerk reaction to say "stop crying!!!"..... but, just because people cried wolf 10 times doesn't mean there wasn't actually a wolf on the 11th time.

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Well, there's obviously no point... you've clearly pinned me/us as Chiefs fan who can't be objective enough to call it as it is, and while we all have our biases, we aren't talking each other into the things we are or aren't seeing on those plays.

Evans tripped because he hit Breeland's leg in his stride while they were both looking back for the ball... that's all there is to it. He was already falling when Breeland reached out, whether that was intentional or to catch his fall. And then Evans continues falling down because his leg got caught under Breeland going to the ground. And I don't think Evans tracked that ball very well.... yeah, he can cover almost 10 yards in a second, but if you go to youtube, the ball drops within ~.25-.5 seconds after he's going down.... it would have been a helluva catch. That's why I said "probably" not catchable.

It was incidental contact initiated by Evans.... Evans can trip over his own feet, Breeland's feet, just fall down.... there was no contact initiated by Breeland to cause Evans to trip and they were both looking back for the ball at the time Evans tripped and caused them both to fall.

I've seen the replays and have slowed them down on youtube prior to today... I've never been above calling it as it is because it's completely out of my control.

I don't WANT the NFL to have such incompetent refs or to think there's conspiracy things going on or whatever... and it certainly doesn't bruise my pride or ego or whatever the reasons are people can't be objective about their team, because again, I have no control over it.

Teams get beat sometimes and even embarrassed, and the completely unacceptably horrible calls in that game were only one reason (granted, a huge reason).... and if you're looking for seemingly less bias when it comes to those calls, listen to Simms or any of the other national media guys who were calling it for what it was, too.

Outside of correcting my obvious error with the 3rd down play, the rest doesn't even really matter in terms of the original point.... Reid was trying to be aggressive and I thought it was a great strategy. You can call the first DPI completely legit as far as I'm concerned, and they still should have only gotten 3 out of that possession (but, I guess Evans could also have super human hops to come down with that pass in the end zone ).

Such a long post and all I could think is what the **** is an octopode? Who needs 8 podes? Seems excessive.