I don't know

[chernobylwraiths]

call, didn't it look like Henry reached the ball across the goal line before the whistle went?

[Michael82]

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. :mad:

[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.

[Michael82]

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. :ill: :sadwalk:

[jdbillsfan]

Willis would have scored

[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...

[Michael82]

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. :mad:

[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. :fury:

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.

[Bills41]

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.

[RedEyE]

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. :fury:

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.

[thenry20]

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?

:crazy:

[RedEyE]

You mean like last week? Where we settle for FG's and still ended up losing?

:crazy:

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

[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.

[finsrclowns]

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.

[chernobylwraiths]

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.

[HenryRules]

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

I think that was a way to make the GM sound better.

It's a much better career move for Mularkey to say "yeah, we have plays with WM and TH in the same backfield" than it is to say "Who the hell builds a team with the two most talented players playing RB?"

[Typ0]

I think that was a way to make the GM sound better.

It's a much better career move for Mularkey to say "yeah, we have plays with WM and TH in the same backfield" than it is to say "Who the hell builds a team with the two most talented players playing RB?"


:rofl:

[Ebenezer]

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.
We had 7 people watching the game and not one of us could tell if the ball was over. We saw something that looked like a ball and it turned out to be a Raider DL arm. The challange wasn't warrented. You have to have conclusive proof. It wasn't there.

[Earthquake Enyart]

Given the way the offense was performing, there was severe doubt that we'd ever get near the goal line again, so I don't have a problem with going for it.

That 3rd down where Gannon ran for about 20 yards, there were at least 3 Bills (Fletcher, Adams, and someone else) who were not only held but tackled. :mad:

[chernobylwraiths]

We had 7 people watching the game and not one of us could tell if the ball was over. We saw something that looked like a ball and it turned out to be a Raider DL arm. The challange wasn't warrented. You have to have conclusive proof. It wasn't there.

I twice saw coverage from the goalline where it shows after his progress is slowed, he reaches the ball for the goal line. It only has to break the plane, like the nose has to hit the goal line. But when I saw it, they cut from the angle. If you look closely at the normal view, you see Henry reach the ball and it looks to be at least at the goal line area, then you see Euhes (sp?) look back toward the official and HE thought it was definitely over. I really thought the ball broke the plane.

Hey Eb, for your roundtable this week, try to get at least ONE person at the table who doesn't feel the season is lost already.

[R. Rich]

Willis would have scored

Hahahahahaha!!!!!!

[Ebenezer]

I twice saw coverage from the goalline where it shows after his progress is slowed, he reaches the ball for the goal line. It only has to break the plane, like the nose has to hit the goal line. But when I saw it, they cut from the angle. If you look closely at the normal view, you see Henry reach the ball and it looks to be at least at the goal line area, then you see Euhes (sp?) look back toward the official and HE thought it was definitely over. I really thought the ball broke the plane.

Hey Eb, for your roundtable this week, try to get at least ONE person at the table who doesn't feel the season is lost already.
wanna be on it? PM me.