# NFL: Week 1 - "We're back baby!" **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [September 9, 2011, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679 "2011-09-09T01:33:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/41 "2011-09-09T14:13:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The past tense of “lead” is “led.” The Saints never _led_ the game. At best, the Saints had a chance to get a TD and try for a conversion to just TIE the game. How is that “a game he had won”? ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/42 "2011-09-09T14:23:00Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I’m also not sure I understand why some people think this was a bad game. Because the offenses outplayed the defenses? Not enough runs up the middle for 2 yards? These are two of the best quarterbacks in the game, after all. > > I enjoyed it. Had some mind-boggling throws and catches, a couple of exciting special teams touchdowns, a few nifty runs, some good defensive plays (if not consistently good defense), and a down-to-the-wire finish. But maybe I’m not enough of a football purist. 😛 I’m with you. I paid for the whole seat, but I only needed the edge! And unless the ref saw something that two camera angles didn’t, that was a blown PI call at the end. Fortunately, I don’t get worked into a lather posting on the internet about the travesties of justice and let things like that ruin my whole week. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/43 "2011-09-09T14:54:09Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > The Packers special teams are still “special”. > > Bring in the short bus. I agree, Randall Cobb’s kickoff return for a touchdown _was_ special. That pass interference call on AJ Hawk was fucking bullshit. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Here’s hoping Tramon Williams is OK. I’d hate another rash of injuries like last year. And Jarrett Bush can’t cover to save his life, and every quarterback knows it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/44 "2011-09-09T15:01:43Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > At best, the Saints had a chance to get a TD and try for a conversion to just TIE the game. How is that “a game he had won”? If they’d punched it in, I think the rest would have been easy. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/45 "2011-09-09T15:15:27Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > At best, the Saints had a chance to get a TD and try for a conversion to just TIE the game. How is that “a game he had won”? You’re making a huge assumption that there is some kind of non-trolling rationality to Dio’s football posts, and that responding to them with actual facts or reality would have any effect whatsoever. After years of reading Dio’s football posts, I can tell you without a doubt that assumption is dead wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/46 "2011-09-09T15:25:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If they’d punched it in, I think the rest would have been easy. Yep. You went there. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/47 "2011-09-09T15:25:51Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > I agree, Randall Cobb’s kickoff return for a touchdown _was_ special. > > That pass interference call on AJ Hawk was fucking bullshit. Agreed. Two talented, likable teams playing as if in mid-season form with lots of highlights and ending within reach of a tie at the 1. What a helluva way to start a season that several months ago looked like it might go tits up. Plus, you gotta love Thursday night ball. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/48 "2011-09-09T15:35:05Z")
The difference in the game is easy to spot, the two times the Packers held the Saints to field goals instead of TDs. That is your 8 point difference right there. Plus lets not forget the Packers D stopping the saints on 4th down and the goal line stand and I think the Packers D made some very big plays. BTW, I have Dio on “Football Ignore”, it’s not a feature of SDMB or my browser. It’s a feature of my brain. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/49 "2011-09-09T16:01:53Z")
The Saints made some stupid play calls. The Packer’s D had nothing to do with it. Go ahead and delude yourself into thinking they played great, though. So is Woodson going to get a suspension for throwing that punch, or is he getting the usual special Packer treatment from the League? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/50 "2011-09-09T16:05:24Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > BTW, I have Dio on “Football Ignore”, it’s not a feature of SDMB or my browser. It’s a feature of my brain. Not really a feature, more like a matter of self preservation. Thinking too hard about anything Dio says about football could cripple your brain. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/51 "2011-09-09T16:16:23Z")
No observation about Woodson throwing that punch and staying in the game? ---
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/52 "2011-09-09T16:22:05Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > It’s Drew fucking Brees. He’s one of the top 4 QB’s in the league. Everything from the middle of the third quarter to the end doesn’t concern me that much, the Packers on defense were clearly playing not to lose so let him rack up as many yards as he wants. But the two stops in the red zone, including the last one where they stopped the Saints to end the game (despite the ref’s best effort) are very heartening indeed. When McNabb tears them up in a close game, then, I will worry. Yep. GB know they can give up points but outscore anyone. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/53 "2011-09-09T16:25:15Z")
From a completely bi-partisan observer, I agree it was the bad kind of cheese. But refs aren’t going to see everything, especially in a cluster like that. If they had then yeah, he should have been shit-canned. Obviously though, something like that is not reviewable. I’ve every confidence the NFL however will take a look the incident and if it merits a fine or suspension that Goddell will act accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/54 "2011-09-09T16:33:32Z")
> [@lieu](#): > > From a completely bi-partisan observer, I agree it was the bad kind of cheese. But refs aren’t going to see everything, especially in a cluster like that. If they had then yeah, he should have been shit-canned. Obviously though, something like that is not reviewable. > > I’ve every confidence the NFL however will take a look the incident and if it merits a fine or suspension that Goddell will act accordingly. Are you talking about Woodson? If so, I agree, he should have been tossed. Thankfully he didn’t make any game changing sacks, tackles, or interceptions, but that was pretty disappointing, to say the least. I certainly expect a fine. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/55 "2011-09-09T16:38:54Z")
Yes, responding to **Dio** ’s comment, but as a slow typist. Woodson is older and should play smarter. In a close game against an extremely talented team you don’t do something so stupid as to give them an unearned advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/56 "2011-09-09T16:54:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No observation about Woodson throwing that punch and staying in the game? It was a dirty, bad thing to do, and he should have been ejected. He should face a heavy fine. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/57 "2011-09-09T16:58:06Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > It was a dirty, bad thing to do, and he should have been ejected. He should face a heavy fine. Agreed. It’s the kind of thing I hate to see a Packer do. It’s possible that there was some sort of provocation, but it still doesn’t excuse it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/58 "2011-09-09T17:21:03Z")
I was kind of surprised, actually. I don’t remember Woodson ever being that kind of player before. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/59 "2011-09-09T17:25:03Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > And I saw a totally different play. I saw Hawk leap at the ball, barely grazing the receiver, and whack the ball out of the air _before_ landing on the receiver. That is, he went after and hit the ball first, then the defender. Looked totally legit to me (neutral observer not rooting for either team). And a hell of a play, IMO. > > They showed another angle on replay from the direction of the official who threw the flag, and it did look like Hawk climbed up the receiver’s back from that angle, so I understand why he threw the flag. Maybe someone will put up a clip online at some point to test my memory - I looked but couldn’t find one. On Youtube: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZLGOXvphk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZLGOXvphk). It’s not totally clear, but it looks like Hawk clips Sproles’ helmet as he starts his jump, at about 6:45 in the video. You can see Sproles’ head bounce forward, but it’s right at the start of the replay, so it’s a bit hard to tell exactly what contact there was. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679/60 "2011-09-09T18:05:47Z")
> [@borschevsky](#): > > On Youtube: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZLGOXvphk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZLGOXvphk). It’s not totally clear, but it looks like Hawk clips Sproles’ helmet as he starts his jump, at about 6:45 in the video. You can see Sproles’ head bounce forward, but it’s right at the start of the replay, so it’s a bit hard to tell exactly what contact there was. Let me start by saying that the call was one of dozens that occur in every game that are purely judgment calls. I’m not going to bitch and whine about the call, there is a reasonable interpretation on both sides. It’s a judgment call that, in my opinion, they got wrong. And I have no problem saying there was “contact” between Hawk and Sproles before the ball got there. But here’s the relevant part of the rule (which you can find [Digest of Rules: pass interference)](http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference) "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch." and "Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference." I do not think Hawk’s contact with Sproles restricted his ability to make the catch. I think the minor contact wasn’t sufficient to interfere with the catch. I also kinda think the contact was incidental when they were competing for the ball. And with the presumption that contact is incidental, I’d not have called it. Bigger picture, I want the game decided by the players, not the officials. I also think the interpretations of the rules have gone so far against defensive players as to be annoying. If it’s clear a violation occurred, flag away. But if it’s a judgment call, I want the officials to let 'em play. Especially on the last play of the game or in big games like, oh, I don’t know, picking one at random, I’d go with Super Bowl XL. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-week-1-were-back-baby/595679.md?page=4)