Steelers-9ers game

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:00 pm

A matchup of two 2-0 teams here. Here's what I see happening.

1. If Alex Smith couldn't get off on Arizona and St. Louis, there's no way in hell he's going to make a dent in the Steelers defense. His line will include 4-5 sacks, 2 INTs and no more than 200 yards passing. And most of that will be in garbage time.

2. Frank Gore will be lucky to gain 75 yards.

3. Willie Parker will get 25 carries and ring up another 100 yard game,

4. The Steelers will get at least 2 deep plays to Holmes or Washington and also have at least 2 drives of 6 minutes or longer.

Steelers 35- 9ers 7

Let the steamrolling of the NFC West begin.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:21 pm

Yep. So far Smith has not impressed me this year. Their defense is good, but not great so I think Pittsburgh will have to do a little bit more this time to move the ball which they will.

Shine · Post by **Shine** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:26 pm

49ers are a 0-2 team disguised as a 2-0 team. They'll be a 2-1 team by Sunday evening. Only point of disagreement is I don't think the crash test dummy will be able to beat the SF secondary deep in the game. I think the final will be more in the range of 24-7. Regardless the Stillers will be 3-0.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:31 pm

Manny Lawson went down today with a torn ACL. Can you say even less pressure on Roethlisberger?

Qbert · Post by **Qbert** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:57 am

Somebody's Voice of Reason wrote: just how did that BENGALS "D" do last week????

don't count on an "EASY Thing."

pittsPUKE will ROLL...imho

SF isn't ready...yet

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:55 pm

the crash test dummy

Nice work.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:57 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
the crash test dummy
Nice work.

Yes it was.

You going to represent this year? Or am I going to have to meet you down at the Point and dispossess you of your Franco Harris jersey?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:30 pm

That crash test dummy is a better QB than Chunky McNugget.

'sayin.

Squeelers 49
Fags 10

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:24 pm

BSmack wrote:Manny Lawson went down today with a torn ACL. Can you say even less pressure on Roethlisberger?

Are you really so ignorant to think it's all about Lawson?

Or, do you think pressure on the backfield might... just might have something to do with the HoF lineman he lines up behind on the left side... you know, that one guy who gets double and triple-teamed on every play for the last 13 years? That one guy, that's made it so whoever he's lined up next to, be it at tackle in the 4-3, or OLB in the 3-4, has helped to Pro Bowls, and Defensive Player of the Year, and all that sort of thing.

Are you really this brain-dead when it comes to how a pass-rush works?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:50 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote:Manny Lawson went down today with a torn ACL. Can you say even less pressure on Roethlisberger?
Are you really so ignorant to think it's all about Lawson?

Or, do you think pressure on the backfield might... just might have something to do with the HoF lineman he lines up behind on the left side...

Isn't he supposed to be lining up behind the center? Crash test dummy nails it.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:56 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote:Manny Lawson went down today with a torn ACL. Can you say even less pressure on Roethlisberger?
Are you really so ignorant to think it's all about Lawson?

No, but if you think losing a Pro Bowl linebacker is a GOOD thing, by all means, do explain. Maybe you and Rumple can get together and work out an explanation.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:05 pm

OK, I'll explain...

Isn't it odd how the guy who has worked in tandem with Bryant Young over the years always seems to end up being in the Pro Bowl?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:53 pm

Dinsdale wrote:OK, I'll explain...

Isn't it odd how the guy who has worked in tandem with Bryant Young over the years always seems to end up being in the Pro Bowl?

Not really. Teams will often put their best pass rushing linebacker in tandem with their best pass rushing defensive end. Tell me you knew that.

Now answer the question. How is losing your BEST outside linebacker a good thing?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:46 pm

BSmack wrote:How is losing your BEST outside linebacker a good thing?

A spinmeister at work.

A) No one will argue that losing a starter, especially a PBer, is a good thing. But when a LB lines up behind a HoFer, his chances at getting a look go up dramatically. Tell me you knew?

B) Hopefully, the Steelers' coaching staff is as ignorant as you are. Lawson is clearly the second-best OLB on the team. First round pick out, and easy shoe-in in the early-going for defensive ROY out front should have told you.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:38 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Besides, that will make the suprise the Niners have in store for the Squealers that much more sweet, when they've never even heard of the guy who's laying an asswhooping on them.

I pulled this from the other thread just so we would have it on record.

I take it you're predicting a 9ers win?

BTW: Willis is a damn good INSIDE linebacker. Not exactly known for his ability to execute a speed rush. Which is why I was very careful to say that the 9ers would not be able to put as much pressure on the QB considering that they just lost their best OUTSIDE linebacker.

Oh, and Patrick Willis damn well better get used to this view after meeting Cary Davis and Dan Krieder.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:18 pm

BSmack wrote:BTW: Willis is a damn good INSIDE linebacker.

In NFL terms?

I'd say that at best, he's got an "incomplete" grade when it comes to playing ILB in the NFL... since he's never tried it.

He played ILB his senior year at Ole Miss(maybe junior, or part of) when he won the Butkus. Played OLB his entire career besides that... including his NFL career.

Dumbass.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:21 pm

BSmack wrote:I take it you're predicting a 9ers win?

Only if they can keep their yards-per-carry down to a minimum.

Shine · Post by **Shine** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:31 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote:I take it you're predicting a 9ers win?

Only if they can keep their yards-per-carry down to a minimum.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:32 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote:BTW: Willis is a damn good INSIDE linebacker.
In NFL terms?

I'd say that at best, he's got an "incomplete" grade when it comes to playing ILB in the NFL... since he's never tried it.

He played ILB his senior year at Ole Miss(maybe junior, or part of) when he won the Butkus. Played OLB his entire career besides that... including his NFL career.

Dumbass.

Read your own fucking team's depth chart.

http://www.sf49ers.com/team/depth_chart.php

He's an inside linebacker in the NFL. And 19 tackles in two games means he's doing a damn fine job. We'll see if that continues now that he's facing one of the elite teams in the NFL.

Oh, and rest assured Gore's yards per carry average will be low.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:47 pm

Could have sworn he's been lining up behind Douglas at OLB.

Regardless, he's still the best LB on the squad.

My prediction... PAIN!

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:34 pm

BSmack wrote:

Oh, and rest assured Gore's yards per carry average will be low.

No shit. what is it - 27 straight games the steelers haven't allowed a RB a 100 yard game?

That catch by V Davis that was ruled incomplete in the 3rd was a fucking gift to you guys. That was one of the worst reviewed calls I've ever seen.

That old Fuck actually said "The runners second foot barely touched the ground".

How can a foot "Barely Touch", and yet not have touched it?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:18 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
BSmack wrote: Oh, and rest assured Gore's yards per carry average will be low.
No shit. what is it - 27 straight games the steelers haven't allowed a RB a 100 yard game?

That catch by V Davis that was ruled incomplete in the 3rd was a fucking gift to you guys. That was one of the worst reviewed calls I've ever seen.

That old Fuck actually said "The runners second foot barely touched the ground".

How can a foot "Barely Touch", and yet not have touched it?

I'm mildly interested in seeing that play again on my DVR. Watching that at the bar, I couldn't understand why Tomlin didn't throw his own challenge flag after the ruling was announced. It didn't look to me like the ball ever touched the ground.

The Steelers played a little sloppy in the first half. They should have had the game put away by halftime. But, I give the coaching staff props for making timely in game adjustments after the 9ers first drive and for using Heath Miller when it became apparent that the 9ers were going to give up the shorter stuff in favor of trying to lock down the Steelers wideouts. Parker was the beast I expected him to be and Gore was shut down just like I thought he'd be.

Overall, I'd give the Steelers a B grade for the game. If they could just get Parker's yards per carry average down, they would have been A+.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:29 am

BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
BSmack wrote: Oh, and rest assured Gore's yards per carry average will be low.
No shit. what is it - 27 straight games the steelers haven't allowed a RB a 100 yard game?

That catch by V Davis that was ruled incomplete in the 3rd was a fucking gift to you guys. That was one of the worst reviewed calls I've ever seen.

That old Fuck actually said "The runners second foot barely touched the ground".

How can a foot "Barely Touch", and yet not have touched it?

I'm mildly interested in seeing that play again on my DVR. Watching that at the bar, I couldn't understand why Tomlin didn't throw his own challenge flag after the ruling was announced. It didn't look to me like the ball ever touched the ground.

It didn't, but the play would have been dead as soon as the receiver hit the ground after establishing possession and being brought down by contact. The ground coughed up the ball, not the defender. That happened after the hit.

BTW Don't expect spinsdale to come back and take his licks. I didn't really expect a win here, but having the defense hold the steelers to 10 points in 3 quarters is progress for the 9ers.

Now they need to get their offense on track. Although with that O line, it's going to be tough this year.

A big fuck you and a har har har goes out to Norv.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:32 am

Mister Bushice wrote:That catch by V Davis that was ruled incomplete in the 3rd was a fucking gift to you guys. That was one of the worst reviewed calls I've ever seen. That old Fuck actually said "The runners second foot barely touched the ground". How can a foot "Barely Touch", and yet not have touched it?

After further review, it was the correct call with a crappy explanation. Davis was contacted by the defender before his second foot touched the ground. Therefore, he had not completed a football move and was required to maintain control all the way to the ground. He did not.

I also don't blame Tomlin for not challenging. It simply wasn't conclusive enough. Also, Nedney was attempting a 50 yard field goal in a stadium that, until that point, had not yielded a single 50 yarder in it's history. It was the smart move not to challenge and risk a timeout.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:01 am

BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:That catch by V Davis that was ruled incomplete in the 3rd was a fucking gift to you guys. That was one of the worst reviewed calls I've ever seen. That old Fuck actually said "The runners second foot barely touched the ground". How can a foot "Barely Touch", and yet not have touched it?

After further review, it was the correct call with a crappy explanation. Davis was contacted by the defender before his second foot touched the ground. Therefore, he had not completed a football move and was required to maintain control all the way to the ground. He did not.

I also don't blame Tomlin for not challenging. It simply wasn't conclusive enough. Also, Nedney was attempting a 50 yard field goal in a stadium that, until that point, had not yielded a single 50 yarder in it's history. It was the smart move not to challenge and risk a timeout.

Agreed on the second challenge, but disagree on the call. His second foot scraped the grass. My 56 inch HD TV and slo mo Tivo says so. I could see the freaking blades of grass move.

Besides, the official used the word "Barely"

There is no "Barely." Like Napalm and hand grenades, it either is or it isn't. If it is "barely", then it IS.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:27 am

Mister Bushice wrote:Agreed on the second challenge, but disagree on the call. His second foot scraped the grass. My 56 inch HD TV and slo mo Tivo says so. I could see the freaking blades of grass move.

Besides, the official used the word "Barely"

There is no "Barely." Like Napalm and hand grenades, it either is or it isn't. If it is "barely", then it IS.

Your 56 inch HD TV and slo mo TiVo should have also picked up the defender contacting Davis before his second foot touched the ground. I don't care what the ref said, the fact is that under the rules of the game, he did get around to making the correct call.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:06 pm

That should have no impact. He had possession BEFORE contact with the defender, turned up field, planted on foot and as he was being hit, touched the other, was flipped over by the defender, lost contact with the defender, still maintained possession, impacted the ground, which caused the ball to pop out.

An incomplete pass would denote a lack of possession. He had that. The indicator was that he turned up field and both feet made contact with the turf. A fumble cannot be caused by the ground.

Besides, the referee himself said the words "his foot barely touched the ground", indicating that it did indeed touch the ground.

We'll see if the league reviews it or not.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:53 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:That should have no impact. He had possession BEFORE contact with the defender, turned up field, planted on foot and as he was being hit, touched the other, was flipped over by the defender, lost contact with the defender, still maintained possession, impacted the ground, which caused the ball to pop out.

An incomplete pass would denote a lack of possession. He had that. The indicator was that he turned up field and both feet made contact with the turf. A fumble cannot be caused by the ground.

Besides, the referee himself said the words "his foot barely touched the ground", indicating that it did indeed touch the ground.

We'll see if the league reviews it or not.

Watch the damn play again. The defender contacts Davis BEFORE his second foot touches the ground. This is not up for debate unless you're Stevie Fucking Wonder. Even had he been able to plant the second foot, he still was under an obligation to maintain possession THOUGH CONTACT ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND. Bert Emanuel out front should have told you that.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:29 pm

BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:That should have no impact. He had possession BEFORE contact with the defender, turned up field, planted on foot and as he was being hit, touched the other, was flipped over by the defender, lost contact with the defender, still maintained possession, impacted the ground, which caused the ball to pop out.

An incomplete pass would denote a lack of possession. He had that. The indicator was that he turned up field and both feet made contact with the turf. A fumble cannot be caused by the ground.

Besides, the referee himself said the words "his foot barely touched the ground", indicating that it did indeed touch the ground.

We'll see if the league reviews it or not.
Watch the damn play again. The defender contacts Davis BEFORE his second foot touches the ground. This is not up for debate unless you're Stevie Fucking Wonder. Even had he been able to plant the second foot, he still was under an obligation to maintain possession THOUGH CONTACT ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND. Bert Emanuel out front should have told you that.

Right, and once he touches the ground, he's down, whether the ball pops out or not. What part of "the ground can not cause a fumble" are you not getting? Stop being such a homer. Your team won. That should be enough...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:33 pm

OCmike wrote:
BSmack wrote:Watch the damn play again. The defender contacts Davis BEFORE his second foot touches the ground. This is not up for debate unless you're Stevie Fucking Wonder. Even had he been able to plant the second foot, he still was under an obligation to maintain possession THOUGH CONTACT ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND. Bert Emanuel out front should have told you that.
Right, and once he touches the ground, he's down, whether the ball pops out or not. What part of "the ground can not cause a fumble" are you not getting? Stop being such a homer. Your team won. That should be enough...

What part of "that was not a fumble" are you not processing?

I'm not being a homer, I'm someone who knows the rulebook better than either you or Bushice. I will agree that the explanation the ref gave was vague and misleading. But his ruling was absolutely correct. When it comes to completing a reception, the ground CAN cause an incomplete pass.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:50 pm

An incomplete pass implies that he never had possession, which is entirely untrue. He clearly had possession all the way from reception until the ground caused the ball to pop out.

EOS

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:07 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:An incomplete pass implies that he never had possession, which is entirely untrue. He clearly had possession all the way from reception until the ground caused the ball to pop out.

EOS

What you are consistently failing to understand is that possession is not established until AFTER the receiver hits the ground. Saying Davis had "possession" over and over again does not make it so.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:53 pm

Having possession is defined as catching and holding the ball with both feet touching and then making a football move, IE turning and attempting to gain additional yardage.

That was one of John Maddens stock phrases on MNF.

Davis did all those things.

Possession is not determined by a receiver hitting the ground. That would signify the end of play.

No where in the rule book does it indicate the receiver has to hit the ground, unless you mean both his feet, which we have already determined occurred.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:56 pm

OCmike wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:That should have no impact. He had possession BEFORE contact with the defender, turned up field, planted on foot and as he was being hit, touched the other, was flipped over by the defender, lost contact with the defender, still maintained possession, impacted the ground, which caused the ball to pop out.

An incomplete pass would denote a lack of possession. He had that. The indicator was that he turned up field and both feet made contact with the turf. A fumble cannot be caused by the ground.

Besides, the referee himself said the words "his foot barely touched the ground", indicating that it did indeed touch the ground.

We'll see if the league reviews it or not.
Watch the damn play again. The defender contacts Davis BEFORE his second foot touches the ground. This is not up for debate unless you're Stevie Fucking Wonder. Even had he been able to plant the second foot, he still was under an obligation to maintain possession THOUGH CONTACT ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND. Bert Emanuel out front should have told you that.
Right, and once he touches the ground, he's down, whether the ball pops out or not. What part of "the ground can not cause a fumble" are you not getting? Stop being such a homer. Your team won. That should be enough...

Forgive me for interjecting... but what I think Bsmack is saying (and you are missing) is that the receiver never had full control of the ball as per the rules. So, with that in mind, he can roll all over the place while still not possessing the ball. So long as the ball never hits the ground, the ball is 'live'.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:07 pm

If the act of catching the ball involves a reciever going to the ground, the reciever must maintain possession of the ball until he comes to rest on the ground.

Davis did not have control until he came to rest. The only thing left to rule on at that point was whether the ball had touched the ground while he was attempting to catch it. The refs believed it did.

I couldn't tell. My fan-of-neither-team who I watched it with (former semi-pro player, FWIW), thought it did touch the ground.

But as far as reviewing-the-review... good call by Tomlin leaving his hanky in his pocket, since despite the retarded ramblings of the retarded announcers, there was ZERO chance of overturning... ZERO. The ref, upon review, ruled that the ball touched the ground during the course of the catch attempt. If he saw something that led him to believe that the first time, what exactly was it he was supposed to see to change his mind?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:33 pm

Ken wrote:
OCmike wrote:
BSmack wrote: Watch the damn play again. The defender contacts Davis BEFORE his second foot touches the ground. This is not up for debate unless you're Stevie Fucking Wonder. Even had he been able to plant the second foot, he still was under an obligation to maintain possession THOUGH CONTACT ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND. Bert Emanuel out front should have told you that.
Right, and once he touches the ground, he's down, whether the ball pops out or not. What part of "the ground can not cause a fumble" are you not getting? Stop being such a homer. Your team won. That should be enough...
Forgive me for interjecting... but what I think Bsmack is saying (and you are missing) is that the receiver never had full control of the ball as per the rules. So, with that in mind, he can roll all over the place while still not possessing the ball. So long as the ball never hits the ground, the ball is 'live'.

Ken,

He clearly had possession when he caught it. he was flipped over, and landed on his back from about 4 feet in the air. The impact caused the ball to pop up in the air. He was not juggling the ball at any point, and he didn't lose the ball when he was hit.

Whatever. Lets see if the NFL reviews it.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:50 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:He clearly had possession when he caught it. he was flipped over, and landed on his back from about 4 feet in the air.

Making it an incomplete pass, by rule, regardless whether the ball touched the ground or not.

The only debate was whether the ball touched the groud or not, and the ref ruled it did. If it hadn't been determined that it touched the ground, then it was a live ball for the defender to catch.

But take away the interception factor, and hypothetically say the ball fell to the turf, rather than being caught by a defender. That becomes an incomplete pass... no ifs, ans, or buts.

Whether the pass was completed to an eligible reciever was never in question. It clearly was not. The ball was in play and up for grabs, had it not hit the ground... but it was ruled that it did (which after watching the replay, I'd guess it did, but I couldn't honestly offer up a strong enough opinion one way or the other, although the ref saw all that he needed to. That's the "controversial" part of that play... not whether it was a completion then a fumble... since it wasn't, even by the longest imaginable stretch of the rules).

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:47 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
Ken wrote:
OCmike wrote: Right, and once he touches the ground, he's down, whether the ball pops out or not. What part of "the ground can not cause a fumble" are you not getting? Stop being such a homer. Your team won. That should be enough...
Forgive me for interjecting... but what I think Bsmack is saying (and you are missing) is that the receiver never had full control of the ball as per the rules. So, with that in mind, he can roll all over the place while still not possessing the ball. So long as the ball never hits the ground, the ball is 'live'.
Ken,

He clearly had possession when he caught it. he was flipped over, and landed on his back from about 4 feet in the air. The impact caused the ball to pop up in the air. He was not juggling the ball at any point, and he didn't lose the ball when he was hit.

Whatever. Lets see if the NFL reviews it.

Just going from memory here (and only listened to it on the radio), but wasn't the ruling that the the reciever never had posession? If that's the case, you can say all you want about the receiver clearly having posession... that would be completely inconsequential since it was ruled that he didn't. Any subsequent rulings by the ref are based upon THAT.

MickBastard · Post by **MickBastard** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:37 pm

That was a frustrating call and I think it was clearly an interception because the ball never hit the ground. Aside from that, the 'Niners were outmatched in every area, although they looked a lot stronger than our previous two matchups (though that's not saying much when we're talking Clevetown and Buffalo). We finally got our special teams performing well after the Travis McGee shenanigans last game. Allen Rossum is a very exciting addition as well; great to see a fast-as-hell return man who doesn't have east-west run tendencies like Randle-El did. And people had better get used to Willie's leading rushing stats. Nobody can catch that guy once he breaks free. Doesn't he have about 100 yards more than Tomlinson and Johnson combined at this point?

I could see nobody rushing for close to 100 yds on Pittsburgh for a long time to come.