Peyton Manning showed up in a suit and tie and respectfully answered questions after the Broncos blowout loss 2 years ago. Cam shows up looking like a punk kid.
Sure, but Manning walked off the field without shaking hands after losing to the Saints.
Aaron Rodgers came within five minutes of the super bowl last year and in an amazing manner it all fell apart. He politely and professionally answered questions after.
A class act.
Relevant article:
For the record, I don’t think it’s a race thing. I think it’s a Newton thing. Russell Wilson probably would have got the Manning pass too.
Yes I agree. I don’t think it’s a race thing either.
Well, I’m not sure that skin color has nothing to do with it. I mean, sure, nobody is consciously thinking “Well, I’m kind of neutral about his behavior in the abstract, but when I also take into account that he’s Black, since I hate Blacks, I’m going to condemn it using language that implies his cultural inferiority, but also his physical dangerousness”. But that’s not how racism works here and now; without meaning to, even people who will publicly say racism is wrong, will unconsciously, without knowing it, apply racial generalities/stereotypes, calling dark-skinned players ‘athletic’ and light-skinned players ‘cerebral’ and stuff.
Let’s face it, if, say, Gronkowski – you know the football player who’s known as much for celebrating as he is for actually scoring – had abruptly left a press conference after a big loss, he wouldn’t be called a ‘punk kid’. He might be mildly condemned for being ‘immature’ (which is something fixable, of course; we’ve all been immature at some point), but just as likely he’d be described as someone who ‘wears his heart on his sleeve’ or something.
I confess I’m confused as to how what you’re saying now connects with what you said that I initially responded to. It may be that I’ve simply misunderstood you.
The facts of the Cotchery reception as I saw them:
- He catches the ball while going to the ground.
- The ball touches the ground. He does not lose control of it at this point.
- The ball comes back off the ground as Cotchery rolls over.
- At this point the DB pushes up against Cotchery’s arm, and the ball shifts in his grasp. It does not, however, touch the ground again.
I maintain that the loss of control in (4) does not negate the catch, as the ball was not touching the ground at the time.
I took you to be saying in post 330 that the loss of control in (4) does negate the catch because the ball had previously touched the ground while under control. This is what I disagree with, and what I said I’d never heard before - that bobbling the ball while it is not touching the ground can negate a catch just because the ball had previously touched the ground. I’m not sure why you then bring up examples where the ball is loose while touching the ground as if they are relevant to this instance where the ball wasn’t loose while touching the ground. I think I’m probably completely missing what you’re saying.
It looked to me as though the ball was moving when it touched the ground, and moving again when he rolled over (while it wasn’t touching the ground). If it was ruled a catch I would have upheld it, but it wasn’t and I wouldn’t have overturned that decision.
Gronk is known for partying, not for doing a dance after a 1st down at the 12 minute mark of the first quarter. If Cam was dancing at a club, surrounded by beautiful women, after winning a game, I could care less.
Close, but not quite. Instead of this:
He does not lose control of it at this point.
A more accurate statement is this:
We do not see that he maintains control of the ball while it’s beneath him.
We cannot ascertain that he did not lose control of the ball. From the replays, when we see the ball on Cotchery’s initial fall to the ground, before his rollover shows the ball bobbling, we do not know that he kept control of the ball. We do not see the ball the whole time as he rolls over it.
This is the key, coupled with the fact that the pass was initially ruled incomplete by the refs. There is not enough evidence to overturn the call.
This is not what I thought before the Superbowl. In trying to puzzle out why they ruled the Cotchery play the way they did, I now think this is what the rule is.
My guess is that the “going to ground” rule makes the act of going to the ground a “single action” from a rules standpoint, such that the ball touching the ground at any point during that single action then also requires complete control for the remainder of that single action. The key is the “single action” element, which of course I have no basis for other than deduction based on the Cotchery play.
We both misunderstood / got mildly confused what the other was saying and responding to. Largely from imprecise quoting and taking things out of context. I got the ball rolling by snipping a post from you that was specifically talking about just the Cotchery play and “correcting” it to normal catches. We went downhill from there. heh.
Hmm. But in that case, shouldn’t they have declared that the video replay confirmed the call on the field, instead of just letting it stand? The ball clearly shifted in his hands after he rolled over, and if that shifting negated the catch then there’s no doubt left.
I think they had to be going with Bullitt’s analysis, saying that the video doesn’t clearly show him controlling the ball the entire time it’s touching the ground. I disagree with that take on the video, but I can at least understand how someone arrives at it.
The single action theory fits what I’ve seen across several games. Including the Dez catch/noncatch last season.
Ymmv, of course
My google-fu is failing me to find if the NFL and/or Dean Blandino has made a statement explaining this play and review.
If you enjoy defensive dominance in a Super Bowl, go find Super Bowl IX and watch it from start to finish. This was the beginning of the Steel Curtain dynasty. The Steelers defense crushed the Vikings. The only Vikings TD was scored when they blocked a punt and took it into the end zone (the kicker even missed the PAT).
Quick stats from the game (from Wikipedia)
Steelers held Vikings to Super Bowl lows of 9 first downs, 17 rushing yards, 119 total offensive yards, and zero offensive scores.
That just makes me sad. I have grown SO sick of how everyone whores out for money. EVERYONE. Manning seemed to have that whole thing scripted, and it sounded rehearsed. He mentioned Budweiser like it was an “off-the-cuff, good ol’ boy” answer. No, A-B didn’t pay him directly for that plug (as far as we know… And how exactly WOULD we know if Manning and A-B both agreed not to make it public?) but Peyton just happens to have a financial interest in A-B. What a coincidence! And A-B is a big corporate sponsor of the NFL, so that helps. And Budweiser has received a ton of free publicity with the talk around that post-game comment. Peyton doesn’t need the money, but it doesn’t matter. Any chance to make an extra buck, and he will do it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Peyton Manning rents the space on his forehead for mini-billboards for his new gig as a football talking head next season (that is the biggest, most visible and flat forehead in the business!). THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
This is not accurate. Marino did not make player personnel decisions (especially early in his career). Don Shula saw what he had and tried to ride that right arm for all it was worth. Dan Marino never made it back to a Super Bowl, but it wasn’t because he refused to have a talented RB on the roster.
What a difference a year makes. Wilson threw one of the most memorable, worst picks in SB history and it cost his team back-to-back titles. He handled it as well as anyone could possibly handle it.
Newton? He looked like a petulant child who couldn’t emotionally deal with losing. Worse than that though, was his lack of effort on that fumble. Now, unless he wins a Super Bowl in his career, he will ALWAYS be remembered for not going after a fumble AT HIS FEET and that post game pout-conference.
I think that fumble could be the single play that defines his career, and he could easily lose the locker room once everyone sits down and watches that play over and over this off-season. Guys are leaving it all on the field, and Newton not only doesn’t dive for a football he was closest to, he took a step backward, away from contact.
If memory serves, the Steeler defense scored a safety, the first in a Super Bowl, by tackling Fran in the end zone?
Regarding whoring out for money, it is business. Advertising. Easy for us mere (and much poorer) mortals to scoff at this, but if every single person who complains about this whoring out for $$$ were to become famous enough to be offered significant $$$ to pitch a product, I’m willing to bet a significant number of them (including you) would accept.
The fumble, from certain camera angles, makes it appear as though the football was right at his feet, but if you watch the play as originally broadcast on TV and not just certain photos at specific angles, the ball is a few feet (venture a guess, maybe 4-8’?) in front of Newton and, critical here, much closer to at least two larger linemen already going for the ball. Newton made a split second decision not to dive and extend his arms (a frequent contributor to shoulder separations). I don’t blame him.
Yes, in postgame and day after interviews he’s been a petulant child.
It’s funny about that fumble. Watching it in real time, the first time I saw it during the actual play itself, it looked to me like the ball was about to take a funny bounce toward the near goal line, and I distinctly thought to myself “Good on Cam for anticipating the weird bounce; how come nobody ever does that?”
That was my immediate though in real time, remember. A split second later, the ball didn’t bounce in that direction, and I thought “Ouch! That’s why you don’t jump to where you think the ball is going to bounce. Now I get it.”
But then a second later, Nance and Simms started murdering Cam for his lack of effort. I was sure it wasn’t a case of pussying out like a punk-ass bitch, but rather he tried to guess the bounce and whiffed. I felt bad for him about how severely the booth was ripping him.
A couple days later, as Cam proudly declares that no, he actually did pussy out like a punk-ass bitch, I was flabbergasted.
I think Dwight White tackled Fran in the endzone. So, I have the same memory you have.
I understand it is a business, and Peyton has every right to make as much money as he can squeeze out of whoever is willing to pay.
And, you may be correct that most people would do the same thing. I think the fact that Manning did it would sadly point to that conclusion.
I am not rich, so it is impossible for me to answer this question with the proper perspective. If you are suggesting that I would take the money like Peyton did, I more than likely would given my current financial circumstances. However, I truly believe if I had the earnings over a 19-year career that Manning has put together, including playing contracts AND endorsements, I can confidently say I would NOT have whored myself over Budweiser (or any other product, for that matter.)
I am making this statement without any knowledge of Peyton Manning’s personal financial situation. Maybe he is a bad investor. Maybe he put his money into a Madoff-esque ponzi scheme. Maybe he is flat out broke.
But I doubt it.
Maybe being offered a seven figure (or whatever it was) sum to say “Budweiser” was just too tempting. I don’t know. What I DO know is whenever Peyton Manning retires, networks will be fighting over him for his services. This isn’t a guy who will ever struggle to make money. This isn’t a guy who will have only one shot at the spotlight and he needs to cash in. This is a very talented guy who will be able to make money in countless ways after he moves away from the field. He will make more money signing footballs at trade shows and giving speeches on the corporate circuit than most people will ever see in a lifetime.
I think legacy is important. It is also something that CANNOT be purchased (ask RGIII). If I had a chance to live a life like Peyton Manning has, I know I would NOT have done the product-whoring at the end of the Super Bowl. In my opinion it was trashy, and it reflects the greed mentality that has taken over EVERYTHING. It personally makes me ill, but I recognize that I am probably in the minority here.
I am not above making money… Far from it, in fact. But I think if Neil Armstrong would have jumped off the ladder and said “Budweiser”, it would have been just as pathetic. He didn’t. He had class and passed from this earth with his dignity intact. Imagine how much money Armstrong could have made if he made a bunch of endorsement deals before landing, and said “That step was brought to you by Papa Johns, Subway, and Budweiser.” I think Peyton Manning would have done exactly that (and slapped corporate stickers on his space helmet).
You can support Newton if you wish. I have no axe to grind with him. I am not a fan of either team, and it did not matter to me who won the SB.
However, I can tell you that most players instinctually go after the ball when it is on the ground, and don’t think about getting hurt. I don’t understand how anyone could suit up for a football game and play their best if they are worried about being injured. It is a contact sport.
I know injuries occur. Drew Brees got injured diving for a fumble, but that was not the normal outcome of a play like that. And this was the Super Bowl, not some meaningless game.
If I was a player on Carolina, I would rather have my QB have the mentality of Brees and not Newton. When he admitted to not wanting to get hurt, it made it clear that he is worried more about himself and his brand, and not his team or winning.
Cam will, if he stays healtly, make gobs of money… He already has, and he is just getting started. But if he truly is thinking about his health on every play, and he measures the risks associated with a fumble BEFORE he goes for it, then I don’t see him ever winning.
He will be rich, but he won’t have a ring and he won’t have the respect of his teammates, his opponents or other people associated with the league.
Maybe that doesn’t matter to him. Maybe the ONLY thing that drives today’s QB is their “brand”, and not championships. That is Newton’s right. It is also Newton’s right to protect himself at all costs if, in his judgement, it benefits him financially. Let’s face it… The money top players make today is so incredible, I think it would be hard to knowingly put it at risk. But that realization doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone feels the same way, or his teammates look at him the same way today as they did before the Super Bpwl started.
I am just glad I am not a Panthers fan. As a fan, I want wins. And I want Lombardi trophies. I don’t care about Newton’s bank account because I haven’t been offered a cut of what he is making. If I was in on that, you can bet I would be out here singing a different tune. I wouldn’t care about the winning share of a Super Bowl champion. I would care about the next 10 seasons of earning potential I could squeeze out of him.