I don't know

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • chernobylwraiths
    Registered User
    • Jan 2003
    • 41838

    I don't know

    call, didn't it look like Henry reached the ball across the goal line before the whistle went?
  • Michael82
    Registered User
    • Jul 2002
    • 82330

    #2
    Originally posted by chernobylwraiths
    call, didn't it look like Henry reached the ball across the goal line before the whistle went?
    Yeah, there were tons of question calls and no-calls. But a good team wouldn't let those beat them.

    Comment

    • Jeff1220
      H to the 12:20
      • Jul 2002
      • 6136

      #3
      I noticed that too. There was a replay from goalline perspective that started to show his hand extend over the line, but just as the ball was about to cross the plane of the goal, CBS faded it out and the announcers never mentioned it. I also noticed a block to the back by the Raiders that was very clear on a punt return, but wasn't called or mentioned. The holding penalty no-call in the EZ (would've been a safety) just tops it all off.

      Comment

      • Michael82
        Registered User
        • Jul 2002
        • 82330

        #4
        Originally posted by Jeff1220
        I noticed that too. There was a replay from goalline perspective that started to show his hand extend over the line, but just as the ball was about to cross the plane of the goal, CBS faded it out and the announcers never mentioned it. I also noticed a block to the back by the Raiders that was very clear on a punt return, but wasn't called or mentioned. The holding penalty no-call in the EZ (would've been a safety) just tops it all off.
        There was tons of holding from the Faider offensive line on our defense too. Tons of no-calls. But like I said...a good team wouldn't let that beat them. A good team would find a way to win.

        Comment

        • jdbillsfan
          Registered User
          • Oct 2002
          • 1071

          #5
          Willis would have scored

          Comment

          • RedEyE
            Registered User
            • Jul 2002
            • 24661

            #6
            If we had kicked the F'n field goal, it wouldn't have been a problem. The O had been inept all ****ing game, why take the chance?
            At the very least, Lindell could have punched that chip shot in.





            Maybe not...

            Comment

            • Michael82
              Registered User
              • Jul 2002
              • 82330

              #7
              Originally posted by RedEyE
              If we had kicked the F'n field goal, it wouldn't have been a problem. The O had been inept all ****ing game, why take the chance?
              At the very least, Lindell could have punched that chip shot in.





              Maybe not...
              I agree. and a Field goal would have tied it too.

              Comment

              • thenry20
                Registered User
                • Jan 2004
                • 844

                #8
                LOL.

                It's about winning games. Not playing not to lose!

                IMO, that was the right call on 4th and goal. We just didn't execute.

                That would've given us the lead and the safety would put us up by six only. We would've needed to convert on 2 points just in case they tied with a FG at the end.

                Comment

                • Bills41
                  Registered User
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 36

                  #9
                  There were some very questionable calls in that game against the Bills and some of them were back breakers, like the long runbacks twice they find someone to call holding on and that sure looked like a safety and a block in the back by the Raiders that was not called.

                  Comment

                  • RedEyE
                    Registered User
                    • Jul 2002
                    • 24661

                    #10
                    Originally posted by thenry20
                    It's about winning games. Not playing not to lose!

                    IMO, that was the right call on 4th and goal. We just didn't execute.

                    That would've given us the lead and the safety would put us up by six only. We would've needed to convert on 2 points just in case they tied with a FG at the end.

                    Sorry bud, Levy would have kicked the FG. I remember many a situation the ol' conservative would make the kick and get the points. Even with the old powerful K-Gun.

                    You can't play to win if you don't even have the points to make you a contender in the game. Kick the FG and that game most likely finds OT.

                    Comment

                    • thenry20
                      Registered User
                      • Jan 2004
                      • 844

                      #11
                      Originally posted by RedEyE
                      Sorry bud, Levy would have kicked the FG. I remember many a situation the ol' conservative would make the kick and get the points. Even with the old powerful K-Gun.

                      You can't play to win if you don't even have the points to make you a contender in the game. Kick the FG and that game most likely finds OT.
                      You mean like last week? Where we settle for FG's and still ended up losing?

                      Comment

                      • RedEyE
                        Registered User
                        • Jul 2002
                        • 24661

                        #12
                        Originally posted by thenry20
                        You mean like last week? Where we settle for FG's and still ended up losing?

                        Well, I'd hope the ****er would be able to make it just off the goal line. ****, I could make it from there.

                        Comment

                        • chernobylwraiths
                          Registered User
                          • Jan 2003
                          • 41838

                          #13
                          I totally agree with going for it. I also kind of agree that maybe we should use McGahee in goal line situations. I love Henry and the way he runs, but it is basic science. The bigger and faster person will just be able to move a pile just a little more. The same run and McGahee scores. As much as I hate it as a fantasy owner, I see the reason why teams have "goal line" and "short yardage" backs. They are just big guys that can move the pile and get the yardage when they need to.

                          Of course, like I said, I think the point should have been moot because I though Henry got the ball over the line.

                          Comment

                          • finsrclowns
                            Registered User
                            • Apr 2004
                            • 1408

                            #14
                            Originally posted by chernobylwraiths
                            I totally agree with going for it. I also kind of agree that maybe we should use McGahee in goal line situations. I love Henry and the way he runs, but it is basic science. The bigger and faster person will just be able to move a pile just a little more. The same run and McGahee scores. As much as I hate it as a fantasy owner, I see the reason why teams have "goal line" and "short yardage" backs. They are just big guys that can move the pile and get the yardage when they need to.

                            Of course, like I said, I think the point should have been moot because I though Henry got the ball over the line.
                            There is no question Henry reached over the goal line with the ball. I assumed the whistle had blown when he did so but I don't know. I liked the decision to go for it.

                            The thing is, we can't do anything right. Henry slipped on the goal line play. It was at least his third slip of the game. He nearly fumbled on one play and then had a ball go through his hands that was picked on the very next play. I'm not saying bench him and I'm not picking on Henry alone but I want to see more of WM, and I think after this week and last week he needs to be in there on the goal line- at least he gives you a threat to bounce the play outside if the middle is clogged.
                            Last edited by finsrclowns; 09-19-2004, 09:40 PM.
                            finsrclowns

                            Comment

                            • chernobylwraiths
                              Registered User
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 41838

                              #15
                              Originally posted by finsrclowns
                              There is no question Henry reached over the goal line with the ball. I assumed the whistle had blown when he did so but I don't know. I liked the decision to go for it.

                              The thing is, we can't do anything right. Henry slipped on the goal line play. It was at least his third slip of the game. He nearly fumbled on one play and then had a ball go through his hands that was picked. I'm not saying bench him and I'm not picking on Henry alone but I want to see more of WM, and I think after this week and last week he needs to be in there on the goal line- at least he gives you a threat to bounce the play outside if the middle is clogged.
                              Anybody got the game on tivo, dvr or tape?

                              Yeah, I agree. Where has the WM & TH backfield gone? They said they were going to do that a bit.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X