2022 NFL regular season through Super Bowl LVII

[DoctorWhom]

Just now, See Red said:

 

I'd like to see all of these other clear holds they missed all game. 

First that comes to mind is a holding call on Juju even he was up in arms about, around the 2nd quarter.  

 

 

Why do you think Bradberry was holding him? Because as he said, he was hoping the refs would let him get away with it, because they hadn't called it all game. 

Yeah it was a good call, but it gave us such a lousy ending which is the part that sucks. 

Are you not allowed to be disappointed that a call (even a right one) took away what was looking to be an amazing ending to a great game? 

[See Red]

Be disappointed about whatever you want. I had no dog in this fight.  I'm disappointed we didn't get to see a final Eagles drive too. But there was a penalty on a pivotal play and they should have called it and they did.

 

I don't see the logic in thinking they missed a call that benefitted Philly earlier so they should've missed another one that would've benefitted Philly.  These guys know the rules.  They know you can't grab a receivers jersey as he is coming out of his break. 

[DoctorWhom]

Just now, See Red said:

Be disappointed about whatever you want. I had no dog in this fight.  I'm disappointed we didn't get to see a final Eagles drive too. But there was a penalty on a pivotal play and they should have called it and they did.

 

I don't see the logic in thinking they missed a call that benefitted Philly earlier so they should've missed another one that would've benefitted Philly.  These guys know the rules.  They know you can't grab a receivers jersey as he is coming out of his break. 

Which is my entire point. So I have no clue why people were arguing me about that.  

It sucks we got the ending we did, especially because it was a call they hadn't made all game. 

Right call or not (which in this case it was) still not the way anyone (other than Chiefs fans) wanted the game to end. 

 

[See Red]

6 minutes ago, DoctorWhom said:

Which is my entire point. So I have no clue why people were arguing me about that.  

It sucks we got the ending we did, especially because it was a call they hadn't made all game. 

Right call or not (which in this case it was) still not the way anyone (other than Chiefs fans) wanted the game to end. 

 

 

Because you're arguing they shouldn't have called it because it was anticlimactic, which is nonsense.

[DoctorWhom]

9 minutes ago, See Red said:

 

Because you're arguing they shouldn't have called it because it was anticlimactic, which is nonsense.

I never said they shouldn't have called it. I said it sucks they called it (after missing & not calling them all game) because it gave us such a disappointing ending. 

 

The nonsense is people saying that's a better ending then what it looked like we were going to get. 

[Rockstar Matt]

4 hours ago, DoctorWhom said:

Like I said, the rose tinted glasses for Mahomes is insane.

 

I'm a Cowboys fan, not a Chiefs fan. There are no rose tinted glasses. I call it as I see it. In fact, until the Rams moved back home to LA, the Raiders were my second favorite team and I grew up disliking the Chiefs. You're letting your own bias cloud your opinion here. 

 

Mahomes is the best QB today and already an all-time great QB. Any one that attempts to lessen his greatness is delusional and doesn't know ball. 

[DoctorWhom]

29 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

I'm a Cowboys fan, not a Chiefs fan. There are no rose tinted glasses. I call it as I see it. In fact, until the Rams moved back home to LA, the Raiders were my second favorite team and I grew up disliking the Chiefs. You're letting your own bias cloud your opinion here. 

 

Mahomes is the best QB today and already an all-time great QB. Any one that attempts to lessen his greatness is delusional and doesn't know ball. 

I'm not denying he's an amazing QB, the rose tinted glasses are people saying the this Chiefs run of the past few years has been more incredible than Brady, or anyone else. Obviously I can see the bias there. Since they'd be saying that about anyone. 

Chiefs have had maybe 3 or 4 memorable games. (Including this game)

 

But saying those are all better than games we've seen from guys like  Peyton, Brady & Rodgers, is absolutely goddamn ludicrous.  

People have jumped on Mahomes faster than I've seen them jump on any player. Right down to the part where it's already taboo to say even a single bad thing about him. 

[Sport]

5 hours ago, DoctorWhom said:

Brady didn't really become the NFL's "darling" until at least that 3rd Super Bowl win that cemented them as a dynasty. 

 

You keep saying this and it's just not true. The second they beat the Rams he was the NFL's darling because the sixth round pick turned Super Bowl MVP was too good a narrative to not drive into the ground. And drive into the ground they did. After they beat Carolina for the second championship is when people started to ask "Is Brady actually good?" It certainly did not take until the third championship for him to become the NFL's darling. 

 

Fawning over Brady happened WELL before the third championship and claiming anything different is pure uncut revisionism to bend over backwards to make some weird point about Mahomes. 

 

 

 

 

 

[8BW14]

7 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

We have to stop acting like this was the worse call we've ever seen in the Super Bowl. It was a penalty, albeit an incredibly lame penalty, but Bradberry definitely grabbed Juju twice. The refs were probably looking at him more intently because of the missed holding penalties they didn't call on him earlier in the game. It was a tough call but we've seen worse.

 

EDIT: I feel the need to add that the Eagles had a 10-point lead at halftime, only allowing 1 offensive TD to the Chiefs in the first half, but they couldn't stop the Chiefs from scoring in the 2nd half. They gave up 3 straight TD's and obviously the FG at the end. Can't blame the refs for one call when the defense couldn't stop Mahomes and the Chiefs even once when it mattered.

Look, the whole game unfolded the way it did up to that point. The Eagles dominated the first half of the game and the Chiefs dominated the second half for the most part. The Eagles had a chance to stop them and hold them to a field goal and the officials took matters in to their own hands there. Sure the Eagles defender had his hands on him but he never held the receiver. Not to mention it all occurred before the pass was thrown and near the line of scrimmage. I know that doesn’t preclude defensive holding but there was really nothing there. He didn’t make the call until after Mahomes threw a hissy fit and the ball landed way out of reach of the Chiefs receiver anyway. To my eye, it was a good defensive play. Who, in their right mind, has so much confidence in what we all saw there to make that call, to put the game out of reach for the Eagles, for that? How was there no doubt in that official’s mind that there was defensive holding on that play? That’s insane. That was literally the only defensive holding call made all game. It wasn’t like he stretched his jersey or hooked his arm. This wasn’t like the late hit that set up the field goal in the AFC championship. It was a weak-assed, bad call that almost literally gave the game to the Chiefs in that moment. A 5 yard penalty shouldn’t be an auto first down anyway. That has always burned my ass. The moment was too big for that official and he blew that call which lead to the chiefs running down the clock and winning the game with a chip shot field goal. 

[DoctorWhom]

45 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

You keep saying this and it's just not true. The second they beat the Rams he was the NFL's darling because the sixth round pick turned Super Bowl MVP was too good a narrative to not drive into the ground. And drive into the ground they did. After they beat Carolina for the second championship is when people started to ask "Is Brady actually good?" It certainly did not take until the third championship for him to become the NFL's darling. 

 

Fawning over Brady happened WELL before the third championship and claiming anything different is pure uncut revisionism to bend over backwards to make some weird point about Mahomes. 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, this just a ludicrous take with no basis in reality.

 

Take it from someone that lived through it, Patriots didn't even make the playoffs in 02, so a lot of people thought the Patriots were just a "flash in the pan" cinderella team.  

Peyton & his back to back MVPs were still the big talk of the NFL until the Patriots cemented their dynasty in 04. That's when Brady became the big name. And then the Brady - Peyton rivalry became a thing. Before then, most people thought the patriots defense & Viniatrai deserved more credit than Brady. 

 

 

Amazing how Mahomes being the next guy makes people completely rewrite history. 

[Burmy]

Sorry if I missed this in an earlier post, but with Chuck Howley finally getting inducted into the Hall of Fame this year. it would've been a perfect year for another MVP to come from the losing team.

 

Jalen Hurts' performance was one of his most solid yet, and he kept the Eagles in the game as long as they did.

[pepis21]

9 hours ago, Kooky01 said:

Mahomes once again proved that he is the best QB in the league. (First MVP and Super Bowl winner since Kurt Warner in 1999, BTW).

Correct me if I'm wrong but Chiefs are also the first team who won Super Bowl after leading in Passing Yards since....Rams 1999 (which to this day was the only team who accomplished that).

[See Red]

2 hours ago, Burmy said:

Sorry if I missed this in an earlier post, but with Chuck Howley finally getting inducted into the Hall of Fame this year. it would've been a perfect year for another MVP to come from the losing team.

 

Jalen Hurts' performance was one of his most solid yet, and he kept the Eagles in the game as long as they did.

 

Yeah, but I think that would've been a slight to Mahomes, who was fantastic on a bum ankle (and didn't have an unforced fumble recovered by the other team for a TD).

[ManillaToad]

1 hour ago, pepis21 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but Chiefs are also the first team who won Super Bowl after leading in Passing Yards since....Rams 1999 (which to this day was the only team who accomplished that).

 

Mahomes was the first passing yards leader to win the Super Bowl ever, and the first to win MVP and the SB in the same season since Warner in '99

[OnWis97]

That's the kinda call that in the second quarter of a week 3 game, people will think could go either way. The difference here, aside from the obvious spotlight, is that for 58 minutes that call had not been made. That's the reason the call bothers me. If the game had been called tightly all game, then I could live with that. But they'd been keeping their flags in their pockets, leading this to be a very ticky-tack call by comparison. It's an inconsistency and that's why I don't like it.

 

I hold the unpopular opinion that refs can decide games late by letting penalties go just as much as they can by calling them. That said, this was closer to the latter, regardless of the letter of the law, simply because I don't think it's called in the first 55 minutes of the game.

 

I've been as willing as anyone to suggest that the NFL has a huge problem with favoritism of certain players and teams. In this case, I'm not quite ready to make that leap because I didn't feel like I was seeing a one-sided game the entire time.  The games that really upset me are games like the Steelers vs. Seattle and Arizona where every call seemingly went to one team. In this case the question is did they really make this call to help KC or did the official who made the call kinda choke? They're human, too and maybe he saw the contact and didn't want to be the guy who let a penalty go at the end of the game.

Again, I wish the call had not been made but conspiracies only enter my mind because of past history...this game, in a vacuum, didn't feel like one team was getting preferential treatment.

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

24 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Again, I wish the call had not been made but conspiracies only enter my mind because of past history...this game, in a vacuum, didn't feel like one team was getting preferential treatment.

 

Last night was the first time I ever heard officials holding the ball so the defense could make substitutions.

 

Might absolutely have been the correct call by the book; it was just something I had never heard done before. And both times they made that call, they were holding the ball for the Chiefs to get set. It just feels weirdly paternal to me.

 

Again, holding the ball for the defense to make subs might be a normal thing but it stuck out as odd to me.

[See Red]

1 minute ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Last night was the first time I ever heard officials holding the ball so the defense could make substitutions.

 

Might absolutely have been the correct call by the book; it was just something I had never heard done before. And both times they made that call, they were holding the ball for the Chiefs to get set. It just feels weirdly paternal to me.

 

Again, holding the ball for the defense to make subs might be a normal thing but it stuck out as odd to me.

 

It's very common for the official to stand over the ball to allow the defense to sub.  The defense is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to subs since they have to react to offensive personnel, so the rules allow them to do so without having to worry about getting caught with too many men on the field.

 

What happened last night is on one play, the Eagles didn't actually sub, to my knowledge, but since the play went out of bounds to the Eagles sideline, it gets treated as if they did. Philly wanted to quick snap to avoid a potential review and did, but the refs shouldn't have allowed it. On an another, the Eagles subbed late and the refs have to provide KC the ability to do it. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

11 hours ago, JerseyJimmy said:

I will say this, Mahomes at the very least has a tangential connection to the Mets. that's something.

His connection to baseball through his father is what made me care about him, before he had won anything.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

4 minutes ago, See Red said:

 

It's very common for the official to stand over the ball to allow the defense to sub.  The defense is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to subs since they have to react to offensive personnel, so the rules allow them to do so without having to worry about getting caught with too many men on the field.

 

What happened last night is on one play, the Eagles didn't actually sub, to my knowledge, but since the play went out of bounds to the Eagles sideline, it gets treated as if they did. Philly wanted to quick snap to avoid a potential review and did, but the refs shouldn't have allowed it. On an another, the Eagles subbed late and the refs have to provide KC the ability to do it. 

 

 

Thanks. I guess it's because it's the Super Bowl routine things that wouldn't have been explained get explained like that.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

12 hours ago, Germanshepherd said:

Yeah lost in all this is that’s normally called a hold

 

Right. That was clearly and unambiguously a hold, due to the left hand. To let that go — especially in the final minute — would be a travesty.

 

Some goofballs actually believe that the officials' job is not to penalise illegal conduct but to set up a good ending. 

 

The reality: if you don't want to get flagged, don't do things that are against the rules.