Re: Two men on islands: Perhaps the biggest matchups against the Colts
posted at 11/13/2009 5:15 PM EST
In Response to Re: Two men on islands: Perhaps the biggest matchups against the Colts
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Two men on islands: Perhaps the biggest matchups against the Colts : I was referring to the PATRIOTS' linemen. Vollmer: 6'8" 320ish Kazcur: 6'4" 310ish Vollmer has a bigger size ADVANTAGE over the DE opposite of him. But if condescension suits you because I proved that Polian campaigned for increased restrictions on downfield contact (with the Yahoo sports article by a 3rd party not affiliated with either city) and because I proved that offensive holding and offensive pass interference suddenly became points of emphasis this year coincidentally right as the Patriots and Steelers joined the trend towards passing offenses, so be it.
Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]
Wait a minute Nick -
You and I have had frequent back and forth and it seems to me that you have demonstrated your own condescension at times. As for proving something to me, you have proven nothing. Here are your posts: After getting roughed up in the AFC Divisional playoffs in 2003, Bill Polian got together with fellow passing czar Mike Martz to campaign for increased emphasis on pass interference because the Patriots manhandled his receivers (and because the receivers weren't tough enough to take it).
Then after getting dispatched in the 2004 AFC Championship Game, Polian decided he would make it his mission to make downfield contact with receivers altogether illegal.
Suddenly now that the Patriots have Randy Moss and Wes Welker as features of their passing offense, it should serve as no coincidence that this year's emphasis is on offensive pass interference and offensive holding.
I asked for proof and this is what followed from you:
Funny thing is, when I search for anything having to do with the NFL competition committee from 2003-2005, nothing comes up...
And I've tried three different news sources (ESPN sorted chronologically, Boston.com with date ranges entered, New York Times with date ranges entered).
They've magically disappeared, but I assure you that the competition committee at that time consisted of the following three people: Mike Martz, Bill Polian, and Mike Holmgren, all of whom were alarmed at the prospect that their finesse passing offenses would be negated by tough, old-fashioned defense.
I'll forward articles if and when I find them - I'll try academic databases where the NFL would have a harder time censoring.
Followed by this: NOt confident in the source, but this is result #1 for "NFL offensive pass interference emphasis" on Google.*
Talks about a memo sent out by the league to teams before this season.
I remember there was a blog post on refs in Pats' training camp telling players how they would call it when the season began.
Yahoo sports documents how Polian cried because his receivers couldn't take the rigors of a FULL contact sport here:
1. The committee agreed that defensive contact on receivers AFTER 5 yards, AS WRITTEN IN THE RULE BOOK, needed to be emphasized because it was not being correctly called. No rule change. Just a focus on applying the rule as it was written. Is there an issue with that? And by the way you had your game after which this happened screwed up. This occurred after the 04 afccg.
2. The information you supplied says absolutely nothing about Polian making it "his mission" to have downfield contact made illegal entirely.
3. Finally, you suggested that conveniently one of the rules emphasis this year had to do with offensive pass interference. There is not a single line in your source that mentions offensive pass interference as a point of emphasis. Just because it comes up as the #1 result on your Google search does not actually mean the source contains information related to it. The source does mention offensive holding, but I ask you this: Indy has been the most prolific passing unit in the league over the last decade and are at the top again this year. What makes you think that now that NE has a passing attack that applying offensive holding emphasis somehow hurts your pats but not my colts? Its illogical. Now, to your other point, these were your words: I also see these matchups as favorable in the run game (not so much Mathis as the undersized Freeney, especially against the ridiculous size and long arms of Vollmer who could possibly consume Freeney figuratively and literally). Your compared Mathis and Freeney by suggesting that Freeney was undersized where Mathis was not. I didn't get that wrong.
Look, I did not respond to your mistakes in your previous thread that you are now trying to claim proof of. I was being nice. Seeing as you think I was condescending, I will make sure not to be so nice next time. If you are going to make a claim I suggest you have your facts straight.