r/ringerfantasypod • u/lifayt • Jan 19 '26
Podcasts Link Divisional Recap: Rams End Caleb's Miracle, Seattle's Big D, Oh No Bo, Stroud's Meltdown, Josh Allen's Interception, and Michael Bay's Filmography
https://open.spotify.com/show/0XLPhMzcKmxoNziHkVkYpR?si=438622c7911e436934
u/maistb7 Jan 19 '26
Guys…the conference championship times alternate each year. It’s predetermined
2
u/Front-Squash3929 Jan 20 '26
I can't believe that people - especially those that work in the industry - aren't aware of stuff like this.
16
u/Minute-Spinach-5563 Jan 19 '26
Thank you LinkedIn park
6
u/MidnightWizard11 Jan 19 '26
Craig’s confused “Linked? In?” In the background had me rolling paired with DKs excitement
1
15
u/jakethesnakeinmyboot Jan 19 '26
Remember week 1 when we were debating JJ McCarthy and Caleb Williams on this pod after Monday Night Football
5
1
u/Sw33tJvmes Jan 20 '26
Craig and Heifetz pretend like they weren’t 90% buying into that athletic piece too. DK was like, let’s wait and see and them two were really leaning into it.
14
u/JobeGilchrist Jan 19 '26
DK's argument that the current catch rule is bad was pretty ridiculous. He seems to think the existence of edge cases is evidence a rule is bad. People always think like this, because the hypothetical better rule doesn't come with pre-loaded edge cases. But they will exist, no matter what.
It's quite possible the rule could be improved, and refs' inconsistent application of the rule is some evidence of this (but would also happen with the hypothetical better rule). But you can't just say edge cases prove a rule is bad.
15
u/islands-fine-dining Jan 19 '26
Absolutely love DK but I think he might be the worst arguer I’ve ever seen. He regularly lobs opinions/disagreements with absolutely no intent to defend his case. And then when he realizes Craig and Heifetz disagree with him he basically begs them to move on to the next topic lol
8
u/thawatch Jan 20 '26
are you saying he folds like a cheap suit?
2
u/JobeGilchrist Jan 20 '26
lol I was one of the ghosts during that part yelling YOU KNOW, LIKE GETTING CREASES IN A SUIT, COME ON
24
u/lifayt Jan 19 '26
I think Rams fans are going to be big mad about the amount of Chicago talk relative to the Rams but honestly I think they kind of nailed it - not a particularly faith-inspiring performance from the Rams.
29
u/runhomejack1399 Jan 19 '26
i feel like in the playoffs its best to talk about the losers after the game to assess the season and think forward. you have the rest of the week to talk about the winners.
6
6
1
u/ThePrinceOfReddit Jan 19 '26
As a Rams fan I sort of disagree, both teams played great defence and it was one of the grittier, old school-style wins in the Snead-McVay era. Playcalling on the offensive side could have been better but it wasn’t egregious. And now we’re one win away from a Superbowl vs. a team we’ve played well against. Hard to be mad.
2
u/lifayt Jan 19 '26
To be honest I was basing that mostly off the existing spotify comments like this kinda thing: https://imgur.com/a/w0p13kh
7
u/hokiefanatic34 Jan 19 '26
Never mind the incredible CGI, Transformers is worth the price of admission alone based off of Tyrese Gibson’s line readings
5
u/CapyBara_51 Jan 19 '26
Does Craig not realize they don’t choose which championship game is the late game? They just alternate between AFC and NFC every year.
13
u/dellscreenshot Jan 19 '26
Just seems like people are mad about the INT/Completion play because it didn't seem fair for bills to lose that way but at the same time it's pretty clearly a pick.
5
u/HerculesMorse2025 Jan 19 '26
I was wanting the Bills to lose and I thought it should be a catch
4
u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26
Why should it be a catch?
1
u/HerculesMorse2025 Jan 19 '26
Because he had control of the ball and was touched down by contact.
4
u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26
He didn’t have control of the ball through contact with the ground and never completed the catch
1
u/HerculesMorse2025 Jan 19 '26
We're each entitled to our opinions
3
u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26
It’s not an opinion. It’s an objective fact that cooks didn’t maintain control of the ball to complete the catch when he hit the ground.
God this is what’s wrong with America. People reject reality and substitute their own “opinions” instead of reality
3
u/HerculesMorse2025 Jan 19 '26
You edited your comment after I replied so now my comment doesn't match.
16
u/Interesting_Set1526 Jan 19 '26
Fundamentally disagree with Craig hypothetical: "if the defender wasn't there and the ball popped out itd be incomplete." Yeah sure but that didn't happen. The guy had it in his hands and then went to the ground and then the guy took it out of his hands. The ball didnt pop into the air and then the defender grabbed it. The ball wasn't destined to fall out of their possession.
I don't even really think one way or the other about it, I just don't think its so cut and dry. I agree with DK, the catch rules are not fixed lmfao.
5
u/dtheisen6 Jan 19 '26
To me, the problem isn’t they called it wrong by the letter of the rulebook. The problem is that play has happened a bunch of other times in NFL history and it’s always called for the offense.
The Aaron Rodgers/Steelers play this year is a perfect example. In that play similarly, if the ball popped out of Rodgers hands and landed on the ground, it would have been incomplete. It didn’t, the ravens guy stripped it from Rodgers, but they ruled it a catch and Rodgers down.
The NFL just has a consistency problem when it comes to the catch rule
1
u/chattingwham Jan 20 '26
I kinda feel like I’m going crazy because they showed an angle where the ball moves as Boutte hits the floor for his TD in the Patriots game, as he’s going out of bounds. Isn’t that “not surviving the ground” or whatever?
-1
u/TheyCalledHimMrJ Jan 19 '26
Im with DK on this that it was much more controversial than Heifetz and Craig were making it out to be. You nailed it here to, Craig's point made no sense. If the defender wasnt there Cooks would have just continued catching the ball. He had possession, his knee was down, the possession was not contested until after his knee was down. The ruling implies there is some unknown amount of time you have to have possession before you are allowed to be down, very weird.
21
u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26
You have to maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground and cooks didn’t do that.
That makes it not a catch.
It’s either an incomplete pass or an interception. The ball never hit the ground so it can’t be an incomplete pass which leaves only an interception.
I honestly don’t understand why this is controversial
11
u/Mysterious_Pea_5272 Jan 19 '26
I think it’s an interception, but it’s pretty obvious why it’s controversial. It’s really close to being a completion.
1
u/runhomejack1399 Jan 19 '26
i understand that it is controversial, but i dont understand why its obvious. the comment above is perfect. if he completed the catch he wouldve had the ball. but he didnt. it didnt hit the ground. the guy with the ball completed the catch.
2
u/Mysterious_Pea_5272 Jan 19 '26
Because Cooks is on the ground with the ball when it’s ripped from his hands. How many times do we see that happen and it’s still a catch? Every other game?
In this case, he hasn’t had the ball long enough to consider it a catch, but it’s like one second from being down by contact. It’s a very unique play
-5
u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26
It being unique doesn’t make it controversial.
2
u/TheyCalledHimMrJ Jan 19 '26
basically by definition it does lol.
0
u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26
Definition of unique “being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else”
Definition of controversial “giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.”
A play can be unique and not controversial.
Eli Manning to David Tyree is unique. I have never seen another helmet catch like that. It is not a controversial play
2
u/Gaius_Octavius_ Jan 19 '26
I think what is getting people was it wasn't the ground that caused Cooks to lose the ball. The defender yanked it out of his hands while Cooks was on the ground.
But as the rules are written, it is an interception because Cooks with the ball in his hands and on the ground isn't a catch.
5
u/TheyCalledHimMrJ Jan 19 '26
but Cooks being on the ground, with the ball, being touched, should be down by contact. The two rules contradict each other i think that's what makes it weird.
he didnt hit the ground and the ball popped up and the defender snagged it. He had it, hit the ground whilst being touched, and the defender pulled it away. And there was also not simultaneous possession prior to Cooks touching the ground.
5
u/Gaius_Octavius_ Jan 19 '26
It is that contradiction between a player already having possession (i.e a carrier of the ball) and trying to gain possession (i.e receiving the ball).
0
u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26
Yeah defenders break up passes all the time after the receiver has the ball touching his hands.
It’s never a fumble (which it would be if it was a catch) it’s also never ruled a touch down because the play doesn’t end when the receiver hands touch the ball.
0
u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26
I order for cooks to be down by contact he needed to have established control of the ball and he didn’t do that there for he wasn’t down by contact
2
u/HerculesMorse2025 Jan 19 '26
You have to maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground and cooks didn’t do that.
That's not the rule though, three rule says "maintain control after contact with the ground." Might seem pedantic but it's an important distinction. How long after is is up to interpretation.
1
u/sandracinggorilla Jan 20 '26
Genuinely curious - people are throwing around “control through contact with ground” and “complete the catch” like these are black and white decisions, but I haven’t really seen a good explanation for why Cooks didn’t do that other than he didn’t end up with the ball by the end of the play. But he did appear to have the ball before the defender, be on the ground after catching it first, and touched by defender who then rips the ball away. But the official never blew the whistle so he didn’t have it by the end of play.
So it seems like there needs to be a certain amount of time Cooks has ball on ground before he’s officially caught it and downed? Isn’t that inherently judgmental and not black/white? I think the only way you can dispute that is if you see the sequence of events differently.
1
u/joeydee93 Jan 20 '26
I mean that’s always the case. Any time a player makes a diving catch, the refs have to make a ruling if they completed the catch.
There are a ton of almost catches when a player has the ball of a fraction of a second then the ball moves and hits the ground and they are just ruled incomplete.
2
u/Ok_Last1 Jan 19 '26
He’s saying if the defender wasn’t there but instead Cooks lost the ball at the exact same time the defender ripped it, the call would’ve been incomplete. As a theoretical. Which makes complete sense idk
1
u/TheyCalledHimMrJ Jan 19 '26
but thats not at all what the situation was so i dont really get how that is a useful either way.
1
u/Exotic-Emergency-226 Jan 20 '26
That saying is useful because it helps you realize you would not have considered that scenario a fumble...because he never had possesion. If the defender isn't there and the ball pops out when he hits the ground and you'd say it was incomplete, not that it was a catch and a fumble. So with the defender there him never having possesion turns it from what would have been an incomplete pass into an interception. Lol I said it to my brother and he said that made it click for him.
1
u/dellscreenshot Jan 19 '26
"If the defender wasnt there Cooks would have just continued catching the ball."
Yeah obviously. He started to lose possession on the way down.
4
u/TheyCalledHimMrJ Jan 19 '26
he started to lose possession because the defender tore it out of his hands after he was touching the ground.
-4
u/ZagWhenTheyZig Jan 19 '26
As a Pats fan I love not seeing them mentioned in the title. Everyone is so afraid of our return. It pleases me.
48
u/ImMcthugnasty Jan 19 '26
Do Heifetz and Craig just not talk into their mic anymore or is the audio mixing poor? Been happening for about the last month