Chalupa Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) I think Garcia was signed for a week maybe two. Vick is back in week 3. Garcia probably won't see a snap. Edited September 15, 2009 by J.H. Deeley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted September 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Go Buffalo! Up at the half! Brady having a rough night! (sorry, conn.......) Update: Buffalo 24, NE 13 with about 5 minutes left. Could it be? I'm waiting for the inevitable NE miracle, but......... Update #2: 24-19....and so the comeback begins. I knew it! Bills fumbled the kickoff return. HUGE mistake! You know if NE scores they'll go for two. Update #3: 25-24.....here we go.......damn, those Pats always seem to pull off the miracle! Hehe! Watching Free go schizoid over the Pats. Never count this dynamic offense out of any game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted September 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 McKelvin may have lost this game for the Bills. They outplayed the Pats on their home turf. Have to disagree, Agg. Pats offense was dominating the game throughout, but just couldn't score in the early going. Gostkowski misses a field goal, and questionable roughing the passing call on Adalius Thomas keeps Buffalo alive when it was 2nd and 20. Buffalo's offense looked terrible. NE's offense looked like they were ready to bust out at any moment. Some of the timing routes looked off and Brady was rusty on a couple of the early series, but they still put up 400+ total yards. Check the stats. New England dominated the game statistically. I was very upset at that dubious roughing the passer call on Adalius, because that allowed Buffalo to get an automatic first down on the 20 yard line. They scored a touchdown out of that when they likely would have been forced to punt if that bogus call hadn't been made. Dumb ass play by Leodis McKelvin to run out of the endzone AND fight for extra yards. I expect the Pats offense will get their timing down a bit better next game, the WATCH OUT! This offense can put 40-50 points on the board very easily. And the young defence will improve over the course of the year. I hope Jerod Mayo is okay. He is arguably the team's best defensive player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Dumb ass play by Leodis McKelvin to run out of the endzone AND fight for extra yards. That's the key play of the game though. McKelvin doesn't run that out, and the Bills likely win the game. Edwards outplayed Brady tonight, IMO. Brady was definitely rusty, and he had to throw more passes than "normal" because of being behind. That's where a chunk of that yardage came from that statistically made the Pats look better. And yes, I agree with you, the Pats will continue to get better as the season goes along. Brady was rusty tonight. But I think the Bills deserved to win, save for McKelvin's bonehead decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Hehe! Watching Free go schizoid over the Pats. Never count this dynamic offense out of any game! Well really, that dynamic offense most likely wouldn't have gotten back on the field had it not been for the fumbled kickoff return. The Pats are good, but they caught a huge break tonight. Oh yeah, and one more thing, conn......plbbbbbbbt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 The Bills SHOULD have won that game and I think they pretty much dominated the Patriots for most of the contest. You have to give those guys credit...3 rookies on the offensive line and they played like veterans. The Bills played with alot of heart, that is the first step towards being a good team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalupa Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 I think the Pats deserved to win. Brady led two drives for TDs in the final 5 minutes and as Conn pointed out they dominated the game statistically. However, Bills should have won and would have won had McKelvin just took a knee. What I'm wondering is - can the Bills bounce back next week? That will show what kind of team they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) The NFL with their first "we hate Al Davis" call of the year. Such bullshit. I'm not watching the rest of this fucking farce of a game. The NFL can kiss my ass. Edited September 15, 2009 by Noj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 The NFL with their first "we hate Al Davis" call of the year. Such bullshit. That was pretty clearly a Raiders touchdown. They got robbed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted September 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Well really, that dynamic offense most likely wouldn't have gotten back on the field had it not been for the fumbled kickoff return. The Pats are good, but they caught a huge break tonight. Oh yeah, and one more thing, conn......plbbbbbbbt! Look here, Mr. Schizoid-For-All! And the Bills wouldn't have had a touchdown if not for the debatable roughing the passing call on Adalius Thomas when he was being sacked. They would have punted after that and would have been ahead only by four points. Note also that that was McKelvin's second kickoff fumble, but the Bills were able to recover the first. Law of averages suggests that the Pats would get the second one. You can't discount turnovers. Brady gave Schobel a gift int in the first half. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I know that stats don't tell everything but here are some key ones: First downs: Bills-17 Pats 28 Total yards: Bills 276 Pats-441 Time of possession: Bills-22:52 Pats-37:08. Take that trombone boy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) The NFL with their first "we hate Al Davis" call of the year. Such bullshit. I'm not watching the rest of this fucking farce of a game. The NFL can kiss my ass. Settle down, Nojjy. It wasn't a catch. This from PFT: Earlier today, we contacted NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira for an explanation of the rule. We were informed that the applicable standard comes from Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1: "Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." So, basically, if the player goes to the ground while catching a pass and maintains possession of the ball at all times, the ball may touch the ground. But if the ball moves while touching the ground, the player necessarily has lost control of it. The NFL with their first "we hate Al Davis" call of the year. Such bullshit. That was pretty clearly a Raiders touchdown. They got robbed. Just like Buffalo did, huh? Edited September 16, 2009 by connoisseur series500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) That was pretty clearly a Raiders touchdown. They got robbed. Just like Buffalo did, huh? Yep and Yep! The rule is fine, but it's the interpretation of "going to the ground" that leaves things wide open, for people who think that was a touchdown, and for people that don't. "Going to the ground" gives me a mental image of a guy who's diving, almost horizontal, or at least...diagonal when he's catching the ball. That wasn't the case with Murphy. After the catch and two feet down, he was knocked to the ground by the defender, sure. But at that point it didn't matter anymore - the play was over. I still say it was a touchdown. Edited September 16, 2009 by Aggie87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 It was a touchdown, that "going to the ground" thing is utter bull shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 The kid never lost control of the ball. I'm as accepting of that explanation as I am the ludicrous "tuck rule" call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 The kid never lost control of the ball. I'm as accepting of that explanation as I am the ludicrous "tuck rule" call. You may not like the rules, but they are rules. He never had control of the ball, imo. He held it and dropped it when it hit the ground. We know a player has caught the ball if he still has control of it and takes two steps. In Murphy's case, he grabbed the ball and fell to the ground. The ball came loose so he never really established control of the ball. Anyway, I'm not a referee, and this is just my silly opinion. Raiders looked pretty decent. Nice running game. Pretty good defence. They will win a few games this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 What bothers me is the judgment calls. Half the time, a defensive player doesn't know what constitutes roughing the passer and what doesn't. The call on Vince Wilfork last night was b.s. He hit Edwards above the knees, and it should have been a safety. I wasn't happy with the similar call against Adalius Thomas, but I admit that you can't tell from the tv whether the referee had blown the whistle. Adalius was just concerned because Edwards was still struggling to get away. He had to tackle him. If referees are going to call these things tight like that, then they should be quicker to call it when qbs are in the grasp of the tacklers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 The league is so hamstrung by rules that it takes alot of the fun out of the game. Back in the old days, the QB got his head knocked off, the backup took over and the team missed the playoffs. TOO BAD! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HOLD THE BALL TOO LONG! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yes, but it's a pass-happy league, and that's how they want it. Everything is geared towards protecting the quarterback. My team has a star quarterback, so you think that I'd be happy with the situation; but I'm not. I just don't think the border between penalty and nonpenalty is clearly delineated. I can also understand Noj's frustration. It's hard to understand what constitutes ball possession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 If Murphy had gotten two feet down like he did, and then got knocked out of bounds (instead of to the ground in the end zone) and then hit the ground and the same thing happened with the ball, I think the refs would have called that a catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 We watched different plays, afaic Conn. I saw control and two feet on the ground. No sense arguing it now, it's in the books! Russell stinks, he telegraphs passes and lacks accuracy. Running game looks solid. Seymour made an instant impact on defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 If Murphy had gotten two feet down like he did, and then got knocked out of bounds (instead of to the ground in the end zone) and then hit the ground and the same thing happened with the ball, I think the refs would have called that a catch. This is starting to sound like a sobriety test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Russell stinks, he telegraphs passes and lacks accuracy. Running game looks solid. Seymour made an instant impact on defense. Yeah, that was the first time I actually watched him play a game, he's pathetic. Some of those passes would have missed the side of a barn. 'tis a shame, the rest of the team looks like they're on the way up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) i hate when teams call a time out a split second before the other team tries a game winning field goal Jerry Jones shouldn't pick his nose who was that idiot sitting next to john madden last night? Edited September 21, 2009 by Soulstation1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 i hate when teams call a time out a split second before the other team tries a game winning field goal I do too. This is new with giving the coach the power to call a time out. And what makes it worse, he can say to the ref, "We don't want to take a time out right this moment. We want to take a time out when there are four seconds left on the play clock." Both the CFL and the NFL should scotch that rule IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 We made the cover of SI this week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.