Tru11

a FG would have kept it at being a 2 score game making it a 13 point difference and leaves them with 4 minutes and 35 seconds to score 2 TD to win it. a TD made it a 3 score game which is a 17 point difference which leaves them with a little over 5 minutes left to score 2 TD and a FG to tie and or 3 TD to win it. if you take the sack on 1st down its 2nd and 17 which pretty much guarantees its going to be a FG. if you throw it away its 2nd and 10 which still gives you a shot at a TD. you have a bigger chance on getting a first down when its 2 and 10 then when its 2nd and 17. you also have a bigger chance to win the game with a 3 score lead then a 2 score lead.

agreed to that. either is better then a pick lol. however what im suggesting is based on the ravens intentions and actions. better yet when i say he should have thrown it away its based on the fact that they used a TO to stop the clock and where trying to throw it into the endzone. ravens basicially had 2 options: option 1 be aggresive and go for the win by making it a 3 score game option 2 be conservative and run the clock and hoping a 2 score lead will be enough. its clear they tried to be aggressive. they wanted the TD and not to burn the clock. that is a fact nobody can dispute. if you want the td then throwing it away would have been the better option as it would have been 2nd and 10. if you want to burn the clock then taking a sack would have been the better option as it would have been 2nd and 17. however if you want to burn the clock why would you call a TO and then try to pass it into the endzone in the first place. makes no sense what so ever tbh....

Or if you mean INC you say INC rather then INT. its probably a to radical concept for you to grasp.

Well have you learned your lesson? When using a small tablet its always good to re read every time!!! Especially when you can mistake a T for C!!! Always a good idea when you are going to accuse someone else for saying something they did not. Also a good tip is to also go back to check it again when the person you are accusing keeps telling you that you made a mistake in what you wrote. If you did that the first time, it would have saved me some time trying to ask to provide the quote your mistake was based on. It would also save you for making an butt out of yourself by sticking to the mistake you made. it was a pain using my iphone6 to go back and search for where i said what you accused me off.

QBs are more criticized for throwing picks and taking sacks then they are from throwing the ball away if nobody is open. Any NFL team will take an incomplete pass over a sack and certainly over a INT. Quite curious which NFL teams rather take a sack then an incomplete pass TBH.

pretty sure its a abbreviation for incorporated. never the less i cant remember you ever using INC in a reply as far as i know. matter of fact i cant remember anyone on this site every using it in that way. heck i cant find any site that uses it in this way. also the C and T are not that close to each other so it still does not explain how you made that mistake in the first place. Seems to me you are just trying to make stuff up yet again tbh.

i rather have my 120 mil QB throw the ball away then take a sack when he does not have to. unless im playing madden where i want him to get a career ender so i can build the team with much needed cap space in my online league.

the C and T are miles apart. also cant remember you ever using INC in your replies ever. at least not arguing with me. so try again buddy.....

yup. still waiting on his proof of what i said.

he did not get stip sacked when he threw the pick. he did not get injured throwing the pick. he did not get struck by lighting when he threw the pick. changing the destination of the pass he threw will not alter reality orso all he had to do was aim the ball a lil bit higher and it would gone out of the back of then endzone. my suggestion would have changed very little other then the outcome of the play tbh

where did i say this? im looking forward to see the quote where i said this.....

you quoted nothing buddy. try again pls.

no comment on the last part lol. i have yet to see him ever just go sit down and take a sack. i have seen him try to throw the ball away with at times mixed results

The reason the ravens drafted Stanley was because they dont want their high priced investment at the QB position getting hit lol No team wants their QB to take unnecessary hits. Hilarious that you guys are now all of a sudden fine with flacco taking a hit when he does not have to.....

you mean like he did on the previous sacks in this game?

what guarantees do you have that the eagles dont use a TO or the ravens dont use 1? also you seriously think flacco would just sit down in that situation? the only way he goes down is if he falls or gets brought down. if he gets brought down what guarantees do you have he does not fumble or does not get injured or even worse both? seems a lot of risk when he can just throw the ball away .....

Dont you even see how ridiculous this crap is that you are saying? No sane person would instruct his high priced QB to willing take a freaking hit for the sake of 40 seconds. Flacco is 31 coming off a season ending injury a year ago and just got a new 3 year 66.4 mil contract No sane person would suggest him to take a sack and thus a hit just for the sake of 40 seconds when he can throw the ball away without being touched. The investment and his worth to this team is worth a lot more then 40 seconds of game time which easily could have stopped anyways since both teams had plenty of TO left. There is 0 guarantees that 40 seconds would have been burned. Without any guaranteed of those 40 seconds being burned why on earth would you risk your QB taking a sack. You are risking an injury and/or a TO for something that is not guaranteed. Makes no sense whatsoever. Lets not even get into the fact that the ravens themselves stopped the clock from running by calling a TO and then came out with a pass play intended to score a TD rather then burning the clock. Not to mention the eagles having 3 TO while the ravens had 2 left. If the ravens wanted to run the clock they would not have wasted a TO and they certainly would not have gone with a pass play. That is a fact Your whole running the clock crap did not cross their mind at that point on that particular play. The facts contradict your line of thinking. Doubt you ever player football but QBs are being taught since little league that its better to throw the ball away rather then take a hit. They need to protect the ball and themselves. Standing there and willingly taking a hit falls under neither of those instructions. Im actually quite curious where you learned that a QB should take a hit even when its totally unnecessary. PS: where is this quote you said you was going to show?

looking foward to see that quote. i rather have flacco throw it away and stop the clock and not burn 40 seconds rather then have flacco take a hit with a kinds of consequences that may occur. the fact that you rather have flacco take a hit for the sake of 40 seconds even though the eagles have 3 TO in the pocket, tells me you havent thought this through. other then the flacco haters you wont find anyone who would want him take a hit just for the sake of 40 seconds. im pretty sure majority would have picked for him to throw it away rather then take the sack.....

YW lol

guess you are not going to admit how wrong you where for this none sense ? No its not. with a sack you risk fumbling the ball which we have seen in this game what it can lead to.( 8 points for the eagles) you loose yards which is never a good thing. your QB takes a hit which you dont want cause in the worse case he is out for the season. compared to this there is no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone period. it was first down anyways and we already stopped the clock using a TO. throwing it out the back of the endzone had no harm compared to the INT or your suggestion of taking a sack. 2 more down to make clock start running again, not to mention the eagles still had all 3 of their TO so they could have stopped the clock if they wanted to anyways...

I said there is no harm in throwing it out the end of the endZone if nobody is open.... practice what you preach buddy

maybe you should practice what you preach. when the ball is snap and the QB is standing in the pocket there is no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone. an int is the worst possible outcome other then flacco going on IR after getting sacked or trying to make the tackle after the int. fact is that the play resulted in an turnover. an incomplete pass would have been a better option then the result of the play. either you agree or you don't

You can do whatever you want. fact remains you where talking about 60-70 yard scoring drives. fact remains my replies use that as the basis. nothing more and nothing less. if all of a sudden you want to talk about all drives and make it 59-70 rather then 60-70 then you are free to do as you please. just proofs to me you where talking out of your butt from the start. so either stick to what you said or change its up.

stopping the clock is not worse then a TO, stop making a fool out of yourself

or just throw it away if the play is not there? no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone if nobody is open. TO was the worst possible outcome. Only thing worse would be Flacco landing on IR making the tackle or getting sacked by holding on to the pass.