71 replies to this topic

[dougsul]

Don't know about Alexander future, but Kenny Brit has shown nothing this year. I know he had to great games last year before the injury but what else does every base his upside on (2 total game). Fact is he is one of three receivers on Tenn, that appear to be getting similar targets each week for a team with losing record that is having difficulty determining their starting QB.

[Seahawk]

bostonsoxandy, on 15 November 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

He should be more productive with Jake Locker back.

My memory is a little fuzzy. Why do they say this. I wonder what the numbers are over the last three years since hassel has been there compared to Lockers two years or 10 games. My memory seems to recall hassel having more of a connection with Britt then Locker, but I could be wrong. Is there anyway to find this out? Locker seemed to connect with Washington quite a bit last year when Locker played.

Edited by Seahawk, 15 November 2012 - 10:25 AM.

[Do Work Son]

Dear Mr. Danario:

I love you man.

Sincerely yours,

Doworkson
xoxoxo

[MothAudio]

That was a WR1 catch/score.

[Tripleshot]

MothAudio, on 18 November 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

That was a WR1 catch/score.

No one has ever doubted his talent, only his durability. There's a reason the Chargers were able to sign him off the street. Enjoy his success, it's not likely to be a long run. He just gets hurt too easily. But for a waiver wire pickup at this point of the season, you gotta love getting that kind of production as you fight for a playoff spot, eve if he might not be there for the playoffs.

[Chargerz]

Do Work Son, on 18 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Dear Mr. Danario:

I love you man.

Sincerely yours,

Chargerz
xoxoxo

fixed

[tazinib1]

This guy started him....but what do I know

[Papajohn]

I am going to start him next week so in all likelihood he is going to suck next week.

[buddahj]

Papajohn, on 19 November 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

I am going to start him next week so in all likelihood he is going to suck next week.

same here

[STL Fan]

Another factor is his practice time. Even when he was in the starting lineup for the Rams, he NEVER got through a full week of practice, and frequently had to have both knees drained. The Chargers' tolerance for him missing practices may have something to do with his success as well. Fisher didn't want to deal with it.

[nelsosi]

All I know about this guy is that he was uber-talented in college. NFL career has been derailed with injuries and lack of opportunity.


Total aside, but his second TD yesterday should not have counted IMO when you contrast it with other similar plays. Very strange explanation from the officials.

[Scorcher]

nelsosi, on 19 November 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

All I know about this guy is that he was uber-talented in college. NFL career has been derailed with injuries and lack of opportunity.


Total aside, but his second TD yesterday should not have counted IMO when you contrast it with other similar plays. Very strange explanation from the officials.

    

    He had control when he broke the plane (plain?) based on that it seemed like a good call.

[Big John]

Scorcher, on 19 November 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

He had control when he broke the plane (plain?) based on that it seemed like a good call.

plane is correct

[Chargerz]

Papajohn, on 19 November 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

I am going to start him next week so in all likelihood he is going to suck next week.

...or get hurt.

[damageinc]

Call me crazy but I am starting him over Jordy Nelson next week especially if Ed Reed is out.. Baltimores Pass D is not that good and without Reed will be below average.  (My WR's are Megatron,Marshall,Nelson, Decker,Alexander and we start 3)

[Gourdeau]

He'll be in my WR3 Spot behind Jordy and Colston

[electricrelish]

damageinc, on 19 November 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Call me crazy but I am starting him over Jordy Nelson next week especially if Ed Reed is out.. Baltimores Pass D is not that good and without Reed will be below average.  (My WR's are Megatron,Marshall,Nelson, Decker,Alexander and we start 3)

Good idea.  I like it!

[Bronco Billy]

nelsosi, on 19 November 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Total aside, but his second TD yesterday should not have counted IMO when you contrast it with other similar plays. Very strange explanation from the officials.

Alexander caught the football in the field of play and took three steps in turning his body to advance towards the end zone and then stretching his hand with the football over the goal line.  Then he hit the ground and he never lost control of the ball, even though it did move slightly in his hand.  As soon as he turned and took those steps he changed from being in the act of catching the football to becoming a runner.  As a runner, as soon as he breaks the plane of the goal line, the play is over and a touchdown is scored.  Anything that happens with the football afterwards is irrelevant to the play.

That was absolutely the right call, and the game announcer - whomever it was - was way over the top in his complete lack of knowledge of the rules as he keep ranting over and over how the ball moved slightly when he hit the ground and therefore the TD (and reception) would be reversed.

Edited by Bronco Billy, 20 November 2012 - 08:21 AM.

[detlef]

Bronco Billy, on 20 November 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Alexander caught the football in the field of play and took three steps in turning his body to advance towards the end zone and then stretching his hand with the football over the goal line.  Then he hit the ground and he never lost control of the ball, even though it did move slightly in his hand.  As soon as he turned and took those steps he changed from being in the act of catching the football to becoming a runner.  As a runner, as soon as he breaks the plane of the goal line, the play is over and a touchdown is scored.  Anything that happens with the football afterwards is irrelevant to the play.

That was absolutely the right call, and the game announcer - whomever it was - was way over the top in his complete lack of knowledge of the rules as he keep ranting over and over how the ball moved slightly when he hit the ground and therefore the TD (and reception) would be reversed.

Didn't see the play, but I've gotten in similar arguments over this rule.  Yep, the whole "control the ball while going to the ground bit" is only supposed to come into play if you're going to the ground while making the catch.  Not, if at any point after making the catch you end up going to the ground.  Yet, people can't seem to grasp that.

Edited by detlef, 20 November 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[Bronco Billy]

detlef, on 20 November 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Didn't see the play, but I've gotten in similar arguments over this rule.  Yep, the whole "control the ball while going to the ground bit" is only supposed to come into play if you're going to the ground while making the catch.  Not, if at any point after making the catch you end up going to the ground.  Yet, people can't seem to grasp that.

Video of Alexander's 2nd TD

[detlef]

Bronco Billy, on 20 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Video of Alexander's 2nd TD

Well, that's not quite as cut and dry as I thought it might be based on your description.  The "three steps" were not all that unlike getting your toes down in bounds sort of steps.  It's not like he caught the ball and turned up field running.

And it's not all that easy to separate the catching of the pass with what happened afterwards.  In other words, I could understand someone saying is was all part of the same motion.

I still think it's a TD, though.

[Bronco Billy]

detlef, on 20 November 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Well, that's not quite as cut and dry as I thought it might be based on your description.  The "three steps" were not all that unlike getting your toes down in bounds sort of steps.  It's not like he caught the ball and turned up field running.

And it's not all that easy to separate the catching of the pass with what happened afterwards.  In other words, I could understand someone saying is was all part of the same motion.

I still think it's a TD, though.

I'm not sure I understand your point.  3 steps after catching the the football and then in the process of turning towrds the goal line is establishing that he's a runner and the act of catching is over.  Doesn't matter that the last of the 3 steps is that he goes to his knee going across the goal line.  He clearly caught the football and then took multpile steps and turned his body prior to putting the football across the goal line.  That by happenstance was also the official's position after review.

[detlef]

Bronco Billy, on 20 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

I'm not sure I understand your point.  3 steps after catching the the football and then in the process of turning towrds the goal line is establishing that he's a runner and the act of catching is over.  Doesn't matter that the last of the 3 steps is that he goes to his knee going across the goal line.  He clearly caught the football and then took multpile steps and turned his body prior to putting the football across the goal line.  That by happenstance was also the official's position after review.

I realize that's the argument and I agree with it.  My point is this:  He was stepping, twisting, and falling all at once.  Your initial description made it sound like he caught the ball, turned, ran three steps up field, and then dove into the endzone.  In which case the whole, going to the ground bit should have absolutely nothing to do with the catch.  I agree with the call, just saying it's not a no-brainer.

For instance, if that catch happens 2 yds further down field, those aren't 3 "steps", those are him getting his feet in bounds as he falls to the turf making a catch.  And, judging by the effort he had to make to catch the ball, where it was, I'm not so certain that his twisting and falling forward was 100% about getting into the endzone and not also about simply coming down with the ball.

[Bronco Billy]

detlef, on 20 November 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

I realize that's the argument and I agree with it.  My point is this:  He was stepping, twisting, and falling all at once.  Your initial description made it sound like he caught the ball, turned, ran three steps up field, and then dove into the endzone.  In which case the whole, going to the ground bit should have absolutely nothing to do with the catch.  I agree with the call, just saying it's not a no-brainer.

For instance, if that catch happens 2 yds further down field, those aren't 3 "steps", those are him getting his feet in bounds as he falls to the turf making a catch.  And, judging by the effort he had to make to catch the ball, where it was, I'm not so certain that his twisting and falling forward was 100% about getting into the endzone and not also about simply coming down with the ball.

If he were 2 yds further down field, he'd have no reason to take steps to go from a position to where his back is to the goal line to where he is extending forward to break the plane with the ball, which is precisely where he took the 3 steps and turned from receiving the football to running with the football - the "football move".  So that hypothetical is pretty much a whole different scenario.

But hey, you agree it's a catch, so if you want to argue just to argue, have at it.  My position is on the board.

[nelsosi]

Full disclosure: I have no horse in this race. I'm not a Chargers or Broncos fan, and I don't own (nor did I play against) Rivers, Alexander or the Broncos D.

But I've seen similar plays ruled incomplete. I saw the play as Alexander elevating to catch the ball and going to the ground as part of completing the catch. He was going to go down regardless of whether the endzone was there or not. He absolutely did not catch the ball, come down with full body control and then turn up field to break the plane (had he done that I'd agree it was a TD). In this case, the whole motion was a single act to my eye. He clearly lost control of the ball as he hit the ground (there was another replay shown in the game that clearly showed this).

Just my view of the play