So he took some Xanax before the flight. Big deal. Who hasn't been escorted off an airplane before.
Dallas Cowboy Season thread
212,457 Views |
2915 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Tksymm7
On the cowboys plane he can just take a bump off Jerry's winky
At this point in his career, I feel like odell shouldn't need to be taught how to mix his uppers and downers.
This is perfect for Jerry, the price just went down!
Feeling pretty good about next week's game against the Colts
Honestly the regular season from here on out probably won't change anything for Dallas. They have 4 games left in which they will be double digit or near double digit favorites and it will be hard for them to win fewer than 12 games. They won't be caught for the 5th seed by anyone behind them, given NY and Washington are a combined 0-3 against them and still have an assortment of divisional games left including two against each other. And unless Dallas plans on winning out they won't be in a a position to catch Philly who is unlikely to lose more than twice more with their schedule.
It's looking very likely at this point Dallas will be the 5th seed going to Atlanta or Tampa in the wild card round.
It's looking very likely at this point Dallas will be the 5th seed going to Atlanta or Tampa in the wild card round.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
toucan82 said:
Feeling pretty good about next week's game against the Colts
Have you been a cowboys fan for long?
It does seem like to the two most likely outcomes are the 5 seed or the 1 seed. I don't see Philly winning out either.Infection_Ag11 said:
Honestly the regular season from here on out probably won't change anything for Dallas. They have 4 games left in which they will be double digit or near double digit favorites and it will be hard for them to win fewer than 12 games. They won't be caught for the 5th seed by anyone behind them, given NY and Washington are a combined 0-3 against them and still have an assortment of divisional games left including two against each other. And unless Dallas plans on winning out they won't be in a a position to catch Philly who is unlikely to lose more than twice more with their schedule.
It's looking very likely at this point Dallas will be the 5th seed going to Atlanta or Tampa in the wild card round.
Ag Natural said:It does seem like to the two most likely outcomes are the 5 seed or the 1 seed. I don't see Philly winning out either.Infection_Ag11 said:
Honestly the regular season from here on out probably won't change anything for Dallas. They have 4 games left in which they will be double digit or near double digit favorites and it will be hard for them to win fewer than 12 games. They won't be caught for the 5th seed by anyone behind them, given NY and Washington are a combined 0-3 against them and still have an assortment of divisional games left including two against each other. And unless Dallas plans on winning out they won't be in a a position to catch Philly who is unlikely to lose more than twice more with their schedule.
It's looking very likely at this point Dallas will be the 5th seed going to Atlanta or Tampa in the wild card round.
But they have to lose at least twice more, one has to be against Dallas and Dallas has to win out in order to get the one seed. Every additional Dallas loss requires an additional Philly loss.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Can we add the toe-to-heel rule that robbed CD of an incredible TD into the "NFL rules that don't make any sense" category?!
Why is it that if a receiver is facing the sideline, simply getting a toe tap in bounds first is the only thing that is needed to classify a catch. His entire body can land out of bounds after the fact, but if those toes touched first it's all good.
BUT.... turn that receiver around and it all goes out the window! Those same toes both touch in bounds first, but now, for whatever reason, other parts of the body (the heels) have to also be in bounds or it doesn't count.
It makes no sense!!!
Why is it that if a receiver is facing the sideline, simply getting a toe tap in bounds first is the only thing that is needed to classify a catch. His entire body can land out of bounds after the fact, but if those toes touched first it's all good.
BUT.... turn that receiver around and it all goes out the window! Those same toes both touch in bounds first, but now, for whatever reason, other parts of the body (the heels) have to also be in bounds or it doesn't count.
It makes no sense!!!
Because its the same thing as a step. If a guy is running down the sideline and his toe is in but his heel is out, you want him to be considered inbounds?jr15aggie said:
Can we add the toe-to-heel rule that robbed CD of an incredible TD into the "NFL rules that don't make any sense" category?!
Why is it that if a receiver is facing the sideline, simply getting a toe tap in bounds first is the only thing that is needed to classify a catch. His entire body can land out of bounds after the fact, but if those toes touched first it's all good.
BUT.... turn that receiver around and it all goes out the window! Those same toes both touch in bounds first, but now, for whatever reason, other parts of the body (the heels) have to also be in bounds or it doesn't count.
It makes no sense!!!
And the 5 and 1 seed are still the most likely if I'm ranking them. Several other possibilities still exist too. Both Dallas and Minn could win out and if Philly loses another one then Minn gets the 1 seed.Infection_Ag11 said:Ag Natural said:It does seem like to the two most likely outcomes are the 5 seed or the 1 seed. I don't see Philly winning out either.Infection_Ag11 said:
Honestly the regular season from here on out probably won't change anything for Dallas. They have 4 games left in which they will be double digit or near double digit favorites and it will be hard for them to win fewer than 12 games. They won't be caught for the 5th seed by anyone behind them, given NY and Washington are a combined 0-3 against them and still have an assortment of divisional games left including two against each other. And unless Dallas plans on winning out they won't be in a a position to catch Philly who is unlikely to lose more than twice more with their schedule.
It's looking very likely at this point Dallas will be the 5th seed going to Atlanta or Tampa in the wild card round.
But they have to lose at least twice more, one has to be against Dallas and Dallas has to win out in order to get the one seed. Every additional Dallas loss requires an additional Philly loss.
The way it was explained to me is they made this rule to make this an easier call for officials. If you didn't have this then you'd been going frame by frame to see if the ball of the foot touches inbounds a millisecond prior to the heel touching out of bounds.jr15aggie said:
Can we add the toe-to-heel rule that robbed CD of an incredible TD into the "NFL rules that don't make any sense" category?!
Why is it that if a receiver is facing the sideline, simply getting a toe tap in bounds first is the only thing that is needed to classify a catch. His entire body can land out of bounds after the fact, but if those toes touched first it's all good.
BUT.... turn that receiver around and it all goes out the window! Those same toes both touch in bounds first, but now, for whatever reason, other parts of the body (the heels) have to also be in bounds or it doesn't count.
It makes no sense!!!
Chuck Cunningham said:Because its the same thing as a step. If a guy is running down the sideline and his toe is in but his heel is out, you want him to be considered inbounds?jr15aggie said:
Can we add the toe-to-heel rule that robbed CD of an incredible TD into the "NFL rules that don't make any sense" category?!
Why is it that if a receiver is facing the sideline, simply getting a toe tap in bounds first is the only thing that is needed to classify a catch. His entire body can land out of bounds after the fact, but if those toes touched first it's all good.
BUT.... turn that receiver around and it all goes out the window! Those same toes both touch in bounds first, but now, for whatever reason, other parts of the body (the heels) have to also be in bounds or it doesn't count.
It makes no sense!!!
I think those are 2 different things. One is defining what is/isn't a catch and the other is with regards to when a runner is considered out of bounds.
It's just a very strange rule with regards to a catch. I've seen them replay it where the toes drag first but then his ankle / outer foot rolls into the out of bounds area and it's this big debate and review process. What does it matter!? If a guy gets a fraction of his tippy does inbounds and the next thing to hit the ground is his knees/elbow/hands/etc... what a great catch! But if he drags those same toes inbouds but the next thing to hit out of bounds is part of the foot (as opposed to any other part of the body)... well, that's just not gonna work says the NFL.
It's a dumb rule and it needs to change.
Well it's a universal rule at all levels of football and has been for years. I doubt that it's changing.
You're thinking way too much about it. It's simple. If any part of the foot is out, they're out.jr15aggie said:Chuck Cunningham said:Because its the same thing as a step. If a guy is running down the sideline and his toe is in but his heel is out, you want him to be considered inbounds?jr15aggie said:
Can we add the toe-to-heel rule that robbed CD of an incredible TD into the "NFL rules that don't make any sense" category?!
Why is it that if a receiver is facing the sideline, simply getting a toe tap in bounds first is the only thing that is needed to classify a catch. His entire body can land out of bounds after the fact, but if those toes touched first it's all good.
BUT.... turn that receiver around and it all goes out the window! Those same toes both touch in bounds first, but now, for whatever reason, other parts of the body (the heels) have to also be in bounds or it doesn't count.
It makes no sense!!!
I think those are 2 different things. One is defining what is/isn't a catch and the other is with regards to when a runner is considered out of bounds.
It's just a very strange rule with regards to a catch. I've seen them replay it where the toes drag first but then his ankle / outer foot rolls into the out of bounds area and it's this big debate and review process. What does it matter!? If a guy gets a fraction of his tippy does inbounds and the next thing to hit the ground is his knees/elbow/hands/etc... what a great catch! But if he drags those same toes inbouds but the next thing to hit out of bounds is part of the foot (as opposed to any other part of the body)... well, that's just not gonna work says the NFL.
It's a dumb rule and it needs to change.
Then why is two toes good enough?
Plenty of completions every year where receivers only get their toes from both feet in and it's a completion…
Plenty of completions every year where receivers only get their toes from both feet in and it's a completion…
Unless they drag their toe*
Again, you're over complicating it. In this scenario, no part of the foot is out.FireAg said:
Then why is two toes good enough?
Plenty of completions every year where receivers only get their toes from both feet in and it's a completion…
If they land on their soles with it 100% in, and drag that foot, it's in.
If they land on their toes then the heel touches out, they're out.
But if they land on their toes and go out of bounds with the same toes, and the heel never touches, it's a catch…
Does not compute…sorry…
Does not compute…sorry…
I can't explain it any clearer. I'll try again.FireAg said:
But if they land on their toes and go out of bounds with the same toes, and the heel never touches, it's a catch…
Does not compute…sorry…
If any part of the foot doesn't land in bounds, it's out.
So if the heel is in the air, it's not landing, so it's not considered in our out, only the part that lands. If the heel lands, it has to be 100% in bounds.
If they drags their toes, the heel never touches and the toes are 100% in.
No I get it…but it's a a stupid rule…if I get a toe down on one foot and a heel down on another, with possession, it should be a catch…end of story…
Yeah, it's an annoying rule. I get the point if the entire foot lands at the same time. Then part of it being out of bounds would make the whole thing out of bounds. But with this catch, the first foot touched and the second foot touched in-bounds before the heel touched out of bounds. According to the current rule, a receiver could catch the ball on the sideline while standing on their toes. They could stay on their toes for 10 seconds, and then fall back onto their heels and be out of bounds. It would be an incomplete pass even though they were in bounds with possession for 10 seconds. Now to my mind 10 seconds or 0.1 seconds shouldn't matter. If you have control of the ball and are in bounds before going out of bounds, then it should be a catch. With this catch he had control of the ball and was in bounds before being out of bounds.
It's also really inconsistent with toe-touch catches. Every single heel of every toe-touch catch lands out of bounds. No one cares.
It's also really inconsistent with toe-touch catches. Every single heel of every toe-touch catch lands out of bounds. No one cares.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
That is correct.FireAg said:
No I get it…but it's a a stupid rule…if I get a toe down on one foot and a heel down on another, with possession, it should be a catch…end of story…
But If both feet do not completely land in, it's incomplete.
It's not difficult.
They'd never do it because of pride, but I thought when they eliminated the push-out rule, they should have switched to 1 foot being good. These refs struggle enough to call a game; I think 1 is much easier to call
Exactly. The Colts are the kind of team that could give Dallas a ton of trouble. Tough, physical, and are gonna be hungry since they are likely a lot better than their record. They have lost many close games that they easily could have won. They probably should have beaten Philly. This one will be a lot tougher than NY was, in my opinion.batchuser said:toucan82 said:
Feeling pretty good about next week's game against the Colts
Have you been a cowboys fan for long?
ramblin_ag02 said:
Yeah, it's an annoying rule. I get the point if the entire foot lands at the same time. Then part of it being out of bounds would make the whole thing out of bounds. But with this catch, the first foot touched and the second foot touched in-bounds before the heel touched out of bounds. According to the current rule, a receiver could catch the ball on the sideline while standing on their toes. They could stay on their toes for 10 seconds, and then fall back onto their heels and be out of bounds. It would be an incomplete pass even though they were in bounds with possession for 10 seconds. Now to my mind 10 seconds or 0.1 seconds shouldn't matter. If you have control of the ball and are in bounds before going out of bounds, then it should be a catch. With this catch he had control of the ball and was in bounds before being out of bounds.
It's also really inconsistent with toe-touch catches. Every single heel of every toe-touch catch lands out of bounds. No one cares.
Thank you! This does a good job of explaining what I was saying. Eventually the heels will hit the ground out of bounds.
In the exact same way that an elbow, a knee or a buttocks = two feet in bounds..... two toes should also equal two feet in bounds... and they do... unless the WR is facing the wrong direction and then for some reason the entire foot has to be inbounds or it doesn't count which is why the rule is ridiculous.
yes, but not with part of the foot in.Quote:
Eventually the heels will hit the ground out of bounds.
It's simple. You have to get the entire foot that touches the ground in. Not part. The entire that touches the ground. So if only the toes touch in, it's a catch.
again, it's not rocket science.
The entire foot always has to be in. Even on a run.Quote:
In the exact same way that an elbow, a knee or a buttocks = two feet in bounds..... two toes should also equal two feet in bounds... and they do... unless the WR is facing the wrong direction and then for some reason the entire foot has to be inbounds or it doesn't count which is why the rule is ridiculous.
Quote:
The entire foot always has to be in. Even on a run.
No it doesn't, which is why the rule is so bass-ackwards. On any other type of typical sideline catch, the toes are the ONLY part of the feet required to establish possession in bounds.
Once those toes are in with possession of the ball, ANY part of the body can hit out of bounds afterwards. His head, his hands, his knees, his shin, his junk, his gold chain, his butt...... if them toes were in first, that's a catch baby!!!!
But wait.... wait..... what if the toes are down and the heel hits out of bounds afterwards.... abso-friggin-lutely not, incomplete pass homie!!!
LOL. I 100% understand the rule, it's just got this one glaring inconsistency. We accept it because it's been like this forever and it rarely comes up.... but it's still dumb!
I've addressed every point in you made on multiple posts . The entire foot that touches the ground. I said that above and then reiterated.
Its very clear and makes perfect sense. You're overthinking it.
Its very clear and makes perfect sense. You're overthinking it.
And my apologies if all this feels like a derail... I'm of the opinion that I post enough quality (debatable!) content that I'm allowed to rant on a rule that is messing with my "that's not logical" side!
Chuck Cunningham said:
I've addressed every point in you made on multiple posts . The entire foot that touches the ground.
Its very clear and makes perfect sense. You're overthinking it.
I know and you've done a very good job at explaining your perspective. Thumbs up, no arguments with your logic. But that doesn't keep the rule from being faulty or having a bad loop hole.
I've seen catches challenged and replayed because they weren't sure, after the toes clearly touched inbounds, if the tops of the feet touched out of bounds. Silliness about where the feet end and the ankles begin became the debate during the replay. It was dumb.
It's not a problem yet because this scenario rarely comes up, but you'd hate to see something dumb like this effect the outcome of a Super Bowl because this rule could easily be fixed.
If you need a history lesson about this sort of thing, look up the old NHL crease rule and the debate (and rule change) after Brett Hull scored the Stanley Cup winning goal in OT for the '99 Stars.
On the subject of the Colts... they aren't as bad as their record suggests, but they have also been riding the high of a new coach in recent weeks.
They aren't exactly impressing tonight. Hoping they suffer another hard loss tonight and we play a team that is coming back down to Earth.
They aren't exactly impressing tonight. Hoping they suffer another hard loss tonight and we play a team that is coming back down to Earth.
I prefer they win. Always better playing a team coming off of a win.
Ryan is such a statue back there. I expect a ton of sacks Sunday night.
Ryan is such a statue back there. I expect a ton of sacks Sunday night.
Featured Stories
See All
Lone Star Showdown revival pits Aggies vs. Longhorns as SEC rivals
by Olin Buchanan
2025 Cocoa (FL) quarterback Brady Hart commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
6:42
18h ago
2.0k
44:52
21h ago
3.5k
7:40
22h ago
2.6k