Hunt lives out here with his wife - massive human.

Boswell doing it again tonight with 2 more field goals (including a 52-yarder) so that gives him 21 straight field goals at Heinz Field without a miss. Al Michaels thinks he should be considered a 4th Killer B along with Ben Ben, Bell and Brown.

Also, Vance McDonald with a nice catch to set up Boswell's latest field goal.

ETA - McDonald up to 4 catches already early in the 2nd half. And as I'm typing this he dropped a fairly hard catch for reception #5.

I also wonder if Boswell is the front-runner for AFC Kicker of the Year (and Pro Bowler). I know Larry Izzo was in the Pro Bowl on special teams but I don't recall our last alum to make the game as a 'position starter'.

(12-10-2017 09:59 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hunt lives out here with his wife - massive human.

Boswell doing it again tonight with 2 more field goals (including a 52-yarder) so that gives him 21 straight field goals at Heinz Field without a miss. Al Michaels thinks he should be considered a 4th Killer B along with Ben Ben, Bell and Brown.

Also, Vance McDonald with a nice catch to set up Boswell's latest field goal.

ETA - McDonald up to 4 catches already early in the 2nd half. And as I'm typing this he dropped a fairly hard catch for reception #5.

I also wonder if Boswell is the front-runner for AFC Kicker of the Year (and Pro Bowler). I know Larry Izzo was in the Pro Bowl on special teams but I don't recall our last alum to make the game as a 'position starter'.

There are a bunch of good kickers in the AFC. Probably a four way race with different things going for them: Gostowski (best team), Boswell (good team, clutch), Butker (Rookie, clutch), and Vinateri (Accurate, Legacy).

I would guess Boswell and Gostkowski have to be the frontrunners at this point. Is that 4 game winners in 5 weeks for Boz?

As an update on career FG%...Boswell is now 82 for 92....89.1%. He needs 8 more attempts to get on the career leader board....hitting all 8 would let him debut as the most accurate kicker of all time...7/8 would put him at #3 (behind Dan Bailey and Justin Tucker). 6/8 would put him at #5. Not bad for a guy who kicks at Heinz field, traditionally considered a difficult place to kick.

Way to go, Boz!

(12-10-2017 11:25 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-10-2017 09:59 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hunt lives out here with his wife - massive human.

Boswell doing it again tonight with 2 more field goals (including a 52-yarder) so that gives him 21 straight field goals at Heinz Field without a miss. Al Michaels thinks he should be considered a 4th Killer B along with Ben Ben, Bell and Brown.

Also, Vance McDonald with a nice catch to set up Boswell's latest field goal.

ETA - McDonald up to 4 catches already early in the 2nd half. And as I'm typing this he dropped a fairly hard catch for reception #5.

I also wonder if Boswell is the front-runner for AFC Kicker of the Year (and Pro Bowler). I know Larry Izzo was in the Pro Bowl on special teams but I don't recall our last alum to make the game as a 'position starter'.

There are a bunch of good kickers in the AFC. Probably a four way race with different things going for them: Gostowski (best team), Boswell (good team, clutch), Butker (Rookie, clutch), and Vinateri (Accurate, Legacy).

I think it's down to him and Gostkowski. Butker has had a good rookie season but I doubt they give it to a 1st year player with the other two guys having more field goals and total points. Speaking of Butker, whatever happened to the Tulane kicker at KC (Cairo)? I guess he got hurt and that gave Butker an opening (Cairo had done well since being drafted and I always was disappointed he got 1st team all-CUSA over Boswell). I thought he was picked up by another team after he got healthy.

I wonder if Boswell is on track for the Pro Football Hall of Fame? If ultimately selected, he would be only the fourth inductee primarily as a placekicker (the multi-talented George Blanda is also listed as a kicker), and only the second such inductee (along with Lou Groza) who is American-born (the other HOF placekickers are Jan Stenerud from Norway and Morten Andersen from Denmark).

(12-11-2017 11:07 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  I wonder if Boswell is on track for the Pro Football Hall of Fame? If ultimately selected, he would be only the fourth inductee primarily as a placekicker (the multi-talented George Blanda is also listed as a kicker), and only the second such inductee (along with Lou Groza) who is American-born (the other HOF placekickers are Jan Stenerud from Norway and Morten Andersen from Denmark).

Adam Vinatieri is a next, IMO (his FG % is 85% over his career). If Bos keeps this up, I don't see why not - although he'd need to keep it up over the next decade or two.

Gostkowski will probably be in too as well as Janikowski.

(12-11-2017 02:32 PM)Baconator Wrote:  Gostkowski will probably be in too as well as Janikowski.

Both can make a good case. Although given the general lack of kickers in the HOF, who knows.

Janikowski at age 39 is 10th on the all time scoring list (regular season). Gostkowski is 21st, although he is a full 6 years younger than Janikowski. Gostkowski also is 3rd all time in FG % and first for anyone who has played for a decade or more.

The crazy part about Vinatieri is he is 44 and shows literally no sign of slowing down. Unbelievable.

(12-11-2017 02:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 02:32 PM)Baconator Wrote:  Gostkowski will probably be in too as well as Janikowski.

Both can make a good case. Although given the general lack of kickers in the HOF, who knows.

Janikowski at age 39 is 10th on the all time scoring list (regular season). Gostkowski is 21st, although he is a full 6 years younger than Janikowski. Gostkowski also is 3rd all time in FG % and first for anyone who has played for a decade or more.

The crazy part about Vinatieri is he is 44 and shows literally no sign of slowing down. Unbelievable.

He can barely kick on ice though, what a LOSER!

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/12/nfl-stee...w-reaction

Steelers lost a key game to New England today on a controversial overtuned TD at the end. Tough call. Boswell was fine but he'll probably have to win one on the road now (probably at New England) if they want to get to the Super Bowl.

(12-17-2017 07:54 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/12/nfl-stee...w-reaction

Steelers lost a key game to New England today on a controversial overtuned TD at the end. Tough call. Boswell was fine but he'll probably have to win one on the road now (probably at New England) if they want to get to the Super Bowl.

It was a wild finish but hardly a controversial call. The rule is pretty clear about maintaining possession going to the ground - some cases such as Megatron and Dez Bryant were controversial, however this was pretty plain, IMO. He did not maintain possession going to the ground and definitely did not become a runner at any point.

All said and done glad I didn't have to root for Boz to miss a FG.

He wasn't going to the ground to make the catch, had made it on the ground with his knee down, clearly pulls it in, then takes it back out to stretch it over goaline, doesn't matter what happened after breaking plane with possession. TD.

(12-17-2017 08:46 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  He wasn't going to the ground to make the catch, had made it on the ground with his knee down, clearly pulls it in, then takes it back out to stretch it over goaline, doesn't matter what happened after breaking plane with possession. TD.

He wasn't touched so his knee being down has zero bearing on the situation. He caught the ball and in the process of going to the ground, chose to extend and then failed to make the catch.

Regardless, it was ruled a TD on the field and overturned. this isn't a borderline stands-as-called case. And yes, it definitely matters after breaking the plane with possession.

You can disagree with the rule, but the call was correct. And just because it was at the tail end of a game, doesn't make it controversial.

It seems that if the goal line hadn’t been there, it would have fairly clearly NOT been a catch under the NFL’s very strict rules for what it takes to make a catch. And I don’t see how the presence of the goal line can change whether a catch was made.

Sorta reminds me of the obstruction call at third base that enabled the Cardinals to win Game 3 of the 2013 World Series: once everyone calmed down, it wasn’t controversial at all. That was a great job by the umpires.

(12-17-2017 09:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 08:46 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  He wasn't going to the ground to make the catch, had made it on the ground with his knee down, clearly pulls it in, then takes it back out to stretch it over goaline, doesn't matter what happened after breaking plane with possession. TD.

He wasn't touched so his knee being down has zero bearing on the situation. He caught the ball and in the process of going to the ground, chose to extend and then failed to make the catch.

Regardless, it was ruled a TD on the field and overturned. this isn't a borderline stands-as-called case. And yes, it definitely matters after breaking the plane with possession.

You can disagree with the rule, but the call was correct. And just because it was at the tail end of a game, doesn't make it controversial.

Just a bad decision to apply that rule in that case. Don't overturn it. The ball moved, but that doesn't mean he lost possession, both hands are around the ball and one appeared to be under the ball. That part was not even conclusive (different from the Dez Bryant play). And that comes into play only if you ignore that he was already on the ground when he made the catch (he wasn't going to the ground to complete the catch). Had he been touched when he initially pulled it in, on a knee, prior to crossing the goaline, would he be down at the 1? Only level of football where that rule exists - a TD anywhere else. I have a problem with the rule obviously, but also with it being applied in that situation, not conclusive in several aspects, don't overturn.

For further proof of the inconsistency with this "rule" and how it isn't applied in a Pats' TD despite a more obvious rule-applying situation, see:
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/26/16364...catch-rule

(12-18-2017 11:28 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 09:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 08:46 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  He wasn't going to the ground to make the catch, had made it on the ground with his knee down, clearly pulls it in, then takes it back out to stretch it over goaline, doesn't matter what happened after breaking plane with possession. TD.

He wasn't touched so his knee being down has zero bearing on the situation. He caught the ball and in the process of going to the ground, chose to extend and then failed to make the catch.
Regardless, it was ruled a TD on the field and overturned. this isn't a borderline stands-as-called case. And yes, it definitely matters after breaking the plane with possession.
You can disagree with the rule, but the call was correct. And just because it was at the tail end of a game, doesn't make it controversial.

Just a bad decision to apply that rule in that case. Don't overturn it. The ball moved, but that doesn't mean he lost possession, both hands are around the ball and one appeared to be under the ball. That part was not even conclusive (different from the Dez Bryant play). And that comes into play only if you ignore that he was already on the ground when he made the catch (he wasn't going to the ground to complete the catch). Had he been touched when he initially pulled it in, on a knee, prior to crossing the goaline, would he be down at the 1? Only level of football where that rule exists - a TD anywhere else. I have a problem with the rule obviously, but also with it being applied in that situation, not conclusive in several aspects, don't overturn.

It looks bad because the ball pretty clearly broke the plane while still in his possession. This is basically another application of the rule on inbounds/out-of-bounds catches along the sideline. By the letter of the rule, this is correct. Is it appropriate to have a rule that produces what may appear to be an absurd result?

(12-18-2017 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:28 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 09:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 08:46 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  He wasn't going to the ground to make the catch, had made it on the ground with his knee down, clearly pulls it in, then takes it back out to stretch it over goaline, doesn't matter what happened after breaking plane with possession. TD.

He wasn't touched so his knee being down has zero bearing on the situation. He caught the ball and in the process of going to the ground, chose to extend and then failed to make the catch.
Regardless, it was ruled a TD on the field and overturned. this isn't a borderline stands-as-called case. And yes, it definitely matters after breaking the plane with possession.
You can disagree with the rule, but the call was correct. And just because it was at the tail end of a game, doesn't make it controversial.

Just a bad decision to apply that rule in that case. Don't overturn it. The ball moved, but that doesn't mean he lost possession, both hands are around the ball and one appeared to be under the ball. That part was not even conclusive (different from the Dez Bryant play). And that comes into play only if you ignore that he was already on the ground when he made the catch (he wasn't going to the ground to complete the catch). Had he been touched when he initially pulled it in, on a knee, prior to crossing the goaline, would he be down at the 1? Only level of football where that rule exists - a TD anywhere else. I have a problem with the rule obviously, but also with it being applied in that situation, not conclusive in several aspects, don't overturn.

It looks bad because the ball pretty clearly broke the plane while still in his possession. This is basically another application of the rule on inbounds/out-of-bounds catches along the sideline. By the letter of the rule, this is correct. Is it appropriate to have a rule that produces what may appear to be an absurd result?

I agree that the rule is flawed and inconsistent with a runner breaking the plane. But this was clearly the correct decision based on the flawed rule.

And just because it wasn't applied correctly in 100% of all applicable cases, doesn't mean this case wasn't applied correctly.

(12-18-2017 11:28 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  

(12-17-2017 09:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  You can disagree with the rule, but the call was correct. And just because it was at the tail end of a game, doesn't make it controversial.

Just a bad decision to apply that rule in that case.

I'm not sure "don't apply the catch rule if it's a potential game-winning touchdown" is a good guideline.

(12-18-2017 11:28 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  The ball moved, but that doesn't mean he lost possession, both hands are around the ball and one appeared to be under the ball.

I'm not sure anyone else would agree. It seems pretty clear that he lost possession.

(12-18-2017 11:28 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  For further proof of the inconsistency with this "rule" and how it isn't applied in a Pats' TD despite a more obvious rule-applying situation, see:
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/9/26/16364...catch-rule

The article says that in that case "The veteran Cooks did in fact maintain possession of the ball" -- i.e., he did exactly what the Steelers player did NOT. That's the reason for the different outcome, not an "inconsistency" in application.

(12-18-2017 11:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I agree that the rule is flawed and inconsistent with a runner breaking the plane.

Now there's a rule I don't like: "breaking the plane". A runner should have to touch the ball down to score a touchdown. But I'm a hundred years late and a continent away to win that one.