jason

Yes. It's definitely changed over the years. I can actually speak to this quite intelligently. A catch in the open field is the same as on the sideline. The process has to be completed. If nobody is around a receiver, he goes up, catches it in the air, lands, rolls, and the ball comes out, it's an incomplete pass. If the receiver gets hit and loses the ball, it depends on whether he made a football move after the catch. If yes, it's a fumble. If no, it's an incomplete pass. Even if he catches it, lands on his feet while in possession of the ball, and gets hit immediately, that's going to be an incomplete pass 99 out of 100 times. There's an axiom in officiating circles that covers this concept: "No cheap turnovers." In other words, when in doubt, the officials don't want to give the ball to the defense if the offense could possibly have still been completing a catch, even if it's the last 1% out of 100% of what makes a catch. That's going to be incomplete. As for getting hit after his knee hits the ground, it's about the sequence. If it's catch, knee, hit by opponent, ball comes loose, all in quick succession, it's incomplete. If it's catch, knee, delay, hit by opponent, ball comes loose, the runner was down when contacted. Same goes for the 89 yard example you gave. The 89 yards constitute a football move, so it's definitely a catch. At that point the catch portion of it is no longer in play. It's just a matter of whether or not the player lost control of the ball before being down. Last but not least, if the runner breaks the plane of the GL with a millimeter of the ball, it doesn't matter what happens afterwards. It's a touchdown. Sorry, but I have MUCH more insight into this from the top down, and I can tell you that you're wrong. Yes, the officials are there to make the judgement calls, and there will always be plenty during a game. Roughing the passer is certainly one of those calls. Same for holding. Incidentally, the holding call is almost always judged at that level based upon three things: 1) Point of attack, 2) Material affect, 3) The defender's feet. If the hold is not at the point of attack, or does not have a material affect (i.e. it's a hold by definition but not enough to stop the defender from moving/pursuing), or does not take the defender's feet away (i.e. make him look clumsy in an attempt to get to the ball carrier) then it's not going to get called. But the rules as they are written, specifically the verbose requirement for a completed catch, are explicitly written to take out as much of the officials' judgement as possible. I know this for a fact. When you say there are hundreds of bad calls per year, I know that you don't really understand what you are talking about. You PERCEIVE that many, but each of the 7 officials is graded on every single play of the game. Each one they are given a grade. I've seen a mock up of the rating sheet. If there were that many bad calls, the turnover of officials in the NFL would be ridiculous. As it is now, the turnover is like molasses in January. As for instant replay, you're wrong there as well. Every play is not reviewed. In fact, there are specific rules in the rule book that dictate which plays can be reviewed.

Even from the link you provided - thanks! - I don't think your case is unequivocal. Cutler's arm is ridiculous and there could have been a window between players, because Bennett was most certainly open. Levy was following his eyes, but Levy is not the guy who batted the ball. And it certainly wouldn't be the first time a QB, much less a strong-armed one, threaded the needle. It's just one of those things. A bad break. The DLineman got his hand on the ball and batted it. Tough play.

Careful there. The definition of "catch" in the NFL rulebook is not the same as the one you probably learned growing up. Nope. That is most certainly not the end of it. What's funny is, the rules are so ridiculously verbose and complicated so as to ensure that the refs do NOT decide. That's the entire reason the whole "complete the process" and "complete the catch" verbiage was put in the rulebook. It's to ensure an official doesn't say, "Yeah, but did you see it move after he hit the ground and rolled?" It hand-cuffs the officials into making a call based explicitly on the rules.

Tom Thayer and the video disagree.

If the Bears keep Melton and Paea, I don't like any draft that starts off with a DT. I'd rather see CB/S in the first.

I understand what you mean, but I believe more in his production than I did/do in SMC's production. Boise State's competition is a far cry from UCLA's competition.

I'm still not happy with the performance, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the injuries. Looking forward to next year, there are a lot of decisions to be made, but I think it's realistic that the starters on the DL could be SMC, Melton, Paea, Wooten. Maybe a really good pass rushing DE since SMC is mediocre. Maybe Anthony Barr, OLB/DE, UCLA slips? If that's the case, I don't really think DL is the first concern. Nor is the LB corp considering the starters will most likely be Briggs, Bostic, Greene. With Tillman and Jennings aging, and the safety play concerning, the focus for the Bears should be in the secondary. Let's be honest, Conte is bad and needs to be replaced. Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, S, Alabama would be great in Chicago. Or, even though he said he's against the move, putting Tillman at safety would allow the Bears to draft a guy like Ifo Ekpre-Olomu, CB, Oregon, who has experience at DB or S.

Without getting into this too deeply, if nearly everyone on the Miami team appears to be supporting Incognito, and the evidence appears that Martin actively participated in the crass exchanges, maybe my point was that Martin was overly sensitive with his sudden comment, much like you. And much like your stupid dog analogy, your comparison in this situation is equally stupid. Comparing a football locker-room environment to a female member of someone's family is apples and pork-chops. Completely different in numerous ways. I'm guessing you've never been in a football locker-room, and if you have, you probably didn't fit in very well. As for your final comment, wrong yet again. I'd fit right in, ribbing both of them as they would inevitably rib me. It's what happens in the locker-room.

But if McCown were to continue playing well, wouldn't it somewhat invalidate Cutler's better play this year as a product of a superior offensive system? I think that's what Alaska is getting at. If McCown were to put up several games like he did this past week, the negotiations would probably go something like this: Cutler's Agent (CA): "Cutler deserves a top 5 deal!" Bears' Management (BM): "Not so sure about that. Why do you think so?" CA: "Look at what he did this year! He stepped it up compared to previous years." BM: "So did McCown. Why didn't he do it previous years? How do we know that this isn't a fluke year or what Cutler did isn't in large part due to the system and the coaching?" CA: Makes face BM: "How about we shoot for somewhere around top-10 money?"

It's not my fault your "funny" reply was misleading and compared a dog to a person. The point of the board is to express opinion. Sometimes it's better to have unorthodox replies instead of a bunch of "Yes" and "Agreed." I'm sorry the analogy wasn't to your liking. As for your final comment, maybe you should change your screen name to Jonathan Martin. -Full Disclosure: I don't think switching from Cutler to McCown is the right move at this time, but if McCown were to stay in for three or four more games with very similar results, I could be persuaded to think a move to McCown would be better for the overall health of the team (e.g. cap, roster, etc.).

I'm not sure if I don't understand your analogy or if it's an incredibly stupid reply to an honest comment I posted. In case it's the latter... My Dad = Cutler Mechanic = McCown In both situations there are two PEOPLE who do things differently based on a skill-set, and it's possible that the guy with the lesser skill-set may just be better suited for this specific job.

I still say the defensive struggles can be pinned on two specific things: 1) Missing a leader in Urlacher 2) Missing the starting DTs

My Father is one of those "I can fix it"-kind of guys. No matter what it is, he can do it. Even if he doesn't have the right tools to do it, he'll fight, fight, fight, and get a pretty good result most of the time. Is it 100%? No. Is it workable? Yes. He's got the skills and the know-how to make things work. One time we worked on removing a timing belt from my fix'er-up Firebird. It was awkward, we didn't have the right tools, and we got dirty, scraped, and still probably didn't have it on as well as it should have been. We took it to a mechanic friend who had the right tool, didn't try to do more than was required, knew exactly what to move and how much, and the end result was a replaced timing belt with zero grease, zero scrapes, minimal effort in about 5 minutes. My Dad is probably more handy overall than that mechanic, and there's usually extra effort and a few setbacks on the path to success, but that mechanic just did what was required.

No shit. When that happened I thought, "Finally." And then I was reminded when Garrett Wolfe was run into the middle of the line, multiple times in a row, despite the fact that he's the furthest thing from a power-back. Now that was some incompetent coaching.

Good fan. I thought the same thing.

I don't care about what he did before or after. There are certain Bear players who deserve their own little niche in Bear history. Two of those players are Corey Wooten and Shae McClellin, for obvious reasons.

If Tuck could be had for a 6th or a 7th, that trade should have already happened. 7th rounders are by and large wasted picks. Tuck at 75% is better than 95% of all 7th rounders.

Are any of these even remotely possible? http://www.sportsworldreport.com/articles/...jason-babin.htm Pretty fun to dream.

I'm not sure I ever saw this on the site before... http://www.stack.com/2013/09/26/can-you-pa...ditioning-test/ I plan on trying this soon. I don't think it should be an issue.

I suspect your post is partially in jest, but that's how it starts. I'm sure they thought that many times over: "Yeah, but we need this mooooorrrre." We can get OL next year. Or, "Well, I'll be. It IS the 7th round already and we haven't drafted OL. Again. Anyone out there who has the potential to not get cut on the first day?" Do it two or three years in a row, and you have a QB throwing off his back foot and ducking like he hears a drive-by shooting.

PREACH. :headbang :headbang

Continuity shmontinuity. Give me five dudes who can play who have never met one another over five guys who have sucked collectively for a decade. And you're right about the boneheaded plays. Just not happening. And the level of pressure being indicated by the "stats" just doesn't pass muster as far as I'm concerned. I haven't watched all the games for every team, but Cutler was running like a Kenyan marathoner last year. This year? Not nearly as much. I'd say about 1/3rd as much. That leads me to believe, to speculate, that there have to be other teams doing worse. The Bears' OL just doesn't look as bad pass blocking as the "stats" indicate.

Yeah, I'm not buying it. Big shocker. Just doesn't pass the eye test. I'm guessing whoever does their stats and watches the Bears games is a Packer fan.

:cheers :cheers

LOL. Because of this post, Conte's new nickname is "Benjamin Button".