Week 15: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Comment/Vent/Rant Eagles Version!

[rmcjacket23]

4 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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.....
 

 

Well that's because I'm not one of the clueless who thinks everytime a QB gets sacked they tear their ACL. This is the real world. He's been sacked 28 times this year and 285 times in his career and got up from all of them, and that's excluding the numbers of times he's been hit or even knocked down. And not all of them provided as much value as being able to use clock time as what he could have provided in this instance.

So yes, I'm willing to try my QB getting sacked for less clock time in a must win game. Frankly, I'd question the intelligence of fans who don't think this way, because I don't think you really understand what's going on and what's trying to be accomplished. Not every sack involves the QB getting blindside pummeled or has a defender diving at his knee. Again, this the real world. There is overwhelming data that QBs get sacked and do, in fact, get up and continue playing and playing well. Certainly not a foregone conclusion that they're out 12 months from getting hit once.

I'm not in the business of playing the lame, lazy game of "well it could happen". I focus on what's most likely to happen. I'm not interesting in what happens when lightning strikes or when pigs fly. What logically is likely to occur based on a decision. The most likely outcome of Joe taking a sack in that instance is, by far, he takes a sack, he gets back up, and either the Eagles take a timeout or we run 40 seconds off the clock, both of which is a benefit for the Ravens and a detriment to an opponent who is down 10 points.

 

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, frozen joe flacco fan said:

You got it! Its not about aggressive vs. conservative. Its about situational decision-making and ego. That's not a strong suit of this head coach and what's more disconcerting is he doesn't lean from his own mistakes. The head coach should get down on his knees and thank C.J. for tipping the pass on the 2 pt. conversion and Jerraud Powers for getting a hand on the ball. It saved the victory and possibly his career as a head coach in BMore. Unless someone can convince me that aggressive and smart are synonyms, I think it was just "Forrest Gump Football" at its finest. 

Well I can't really definitively say whether this has much to do with Harbaugh or not, because he's not a play caller. It could have been an instance where he assumes that his OC is smart enough to run the ball there and didn't bother to confirm, which I can't blame him for.

I'd put a gigantic amount more blame on Marty and Joe than on John. I don't think John knew what the play call was, and I think he would have vetoed if he had known. 

[The Mom Gene]

38 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

They score on a game-by-game basis. One of the perks of PFF grading is that they can remove the biases and actually grade people objectively. 

Oftentimes the perception of somebody being good or bad on an individual game basis is influenced by whether we like the player or a pre-disposed bias towards them based on previous good or bad play. That's what's occurring here.

Zuttah is certainly inconsistent and probably the weakest player on the line this year, but that doesn't mean he never has good games. Certainly has.

Nobody has said that he hasn't had a good game here or there...  I mean, even a blind squirrel can find a nut.

 

[The Mom Gene]

1 hour ago, ellicottraven said:

See we all lambast our O-line constantly because its almost fashionable to do so. But, if you look at the PFF ratings that came out after the game, 3 of the 5 linemen including Zuttah scored in the 80s! So, maybe there is more to it than we ordinary fans can see. Just some food for thought.

Ellicott....  THIS is a clean pocket.  I haven't seen one like this the entire season...  Have you???

[gtalk12]

Flacco throwing that pick was painful but it is not what almost cost us the game, what almost cost us the game was the fact that our #1 ranked defense could no stop ANYONE coming out of that backfield. We scored 27 which should have been more than enough to put those guys away easily. Our defense failed us and then came up big with that tip by Mosley.

 

I am not putting this on Flacco, could he have played better? Sure he could have, but our defense COULD have at lease shown up yesterday

[rmcjacket23]

28 minutes ago, The Mom Gene said:

Nobody has said that he hasn't had a good game here or there...  I mean, even a blind squirrel can find a nut.

 

Well you said he should never score in the 80s, which is a good game, so...

[Tru11]

50 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well that's because I'm not one of the clueless who thinks everytime a QB gets sacked they tear their ACL. This is the real world. He's been sacked 28 times this year and 285 times in his career and got up from all of them, and that's excluding the numbers of times he's been hit or even knocked down. And not all of them provided as much value as being able to use clock time as what he could have provided in this instance.

So yes, I'm willing to try my QB getting sacked for less clock time in a must win game. Frankly, I'd question the intelligence of fans who don't think this way, because I don't think you really understand what's going on and what's trying to be accomplished. Not every sack involves the QB getting blindside pummeled or has a defender diving at his knee. Again, this the real world. There is overwhelming data that QBs get sacked and do, in fact, get up and continue playing and playing well. Certainly not a foregone conclusion that they're out 12 months from getting hit once.

I'm not in the business of playing the lame, lazy game of "well it could happen". I focus on what's most likely to happen. I'm not interesting in what happens when lightning strikes or when pigs fly. What logically is likely to occur based on a decision. The most likely outcome of Joe taking a sack in that instance is, by far, he takes a sack, he gets back up, and either the Eagles take a timeout or we run 40 seconds off the clock, both of which is a benefit for the Ravens and a detriment to an opponent who is down 10 points.

 

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?


 

[January J]

5 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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?


 

I don't see why not? I'd much rather have flacco take a sack than throw the ball away IN THAT SITUATION. We're iin feild goal range regardless- and 40 seconds could've been the difference in victory and defeat- as we've seen ( and just saw ) countless times. And you act like he'd be getting bulldozed from the blind side ..he could have basically just sat down in that situation and it would've been smarter as it would've taken atleast 30 seconds off the clock ( or cost them a timeout, though it was a little early for that) 

Edited December 19, 2016 by January J

[rmw10]

10 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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?


 

Take a sack doesn't mean he has to stand in the pocket and get blasted.  He can tuck the ball and fall.

[Tru11]

Just now, January J said:

I don't see why not? I'd much rather have flacco take a sack than throw the ball away IN THAT SITUATION. We're iin feild goal range regardless- and 40 seconds could've been the difference in victory and defeat- as we've seen ( and just saw ) countless times. And you act like he'd be getting bulldozed from the blind side ..he could have basically just sat down in that situation and it would've been smarter. 

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 .....

 

[Tru11]

Just now, rmw10 said:

Take a sack doesn't mean he has to stand in the pocket and get blasted.  He can tuck the ball and fall.

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

[JoeyFlex5]

12 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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?


 

Contact happens on EVERY play. Why even field your team if you think taking hits are too risky? 

[rmw10]

2 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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

It's called situational football.  If he's smart, he absolutely takes a sack and lets the clock run or makes the Eagles take a TO.  Whether or not he would be smart enough to make that decision is an entirely different argument.

[Tru11]

1 minute ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

Contact happens on EVERY play. Why even field your team if you think taking hits are too risky? 

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.....

[BmoreBird22]

5 hours ago, Tru11 said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

You said that there's no harm in throwing an INT there. That statement is incorrect. 

You can move the goal posts as far away from that statement as you want. It doesn't matter. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, because your statement was wrong. Its not up to interpretation.

 

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. Well I can't be wrong about something that I quoted YOU for saying. If I'm quoting you about something, and now you say its wrong, by definition, that makes you wrong. That's kind of how quotes work.

Just so we're clear on this matter...

[rmcjacket23]

25 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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?


 

 

1. This would be the quote... the one I've quoted you on several times already... " no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone if nobody is open. " The one that is blatantly false because it can do significant harm. Good chance you missed owning how wrong it was while you were tripping over yourself as you backpedaled away from it. No worries though... I don't suspect you'll take any ownership of it anytime soon. Will most likely just dance around it or move the goal posts a bit more. I've seen it all.

2. LOL. The kid still thinks its about 40 seconds, as if that 40 seconds isn't everything in a must win game. Let me guess... next you'll say "its only a couple yards", as if a couple yards isn't the difference between playoffs and non playoffs. Except, it is. 

3. Actually, the 40 seconds burns whether they take the timeout or not. Its just a question of when it burns. Because once they are out of timeouts, they can no longer stop the clock. And if they stop it now, they won't be able to stop it later. That's kind of the whole point of running the ball there... it achieves every possible objective. It keeps the clock running, it forces the Eagles to make decisions that will impact the rest of the game, its less riskier, and it can achieve the same rewards as throwing will. And while the Ravens clearly either didn't think about that then or didn't care, they obviously did afterwards, when John called it "one of the stupidest calls he'd seen". Those facts aren't contradicting anything.

4. You keep talking about guarantees as if you offer any of your own. Like I said, you clearly have some sort of fear of a football player getting hurt. News flash... QBs don't actually get injured that often. They get hit dozens of times a season, and most of them never get hurt at all. The percentage of times a QB gets sacked and is actually injured is very, very, very small. If it were as common as you make it seem, I'd expect 32 NFL QBs to be on IR by the end of the year. Clearly, that doesn't happen. 

The reality is the least guaranteed part of this whole discussion is you claiming our o so delicate QB is going to get a boo boo again. 

Since you're so convinced that the coaching staff doesn't share my line of thinking, its pretty clear they don't share yours either. Why? Because they sent their high priced QB back to pass in a condensed space in a situation where running the ball protects him and the team. So clearly, they're not nearly as concerned about losing him to injury as you are, which would also be evidence by the number of passing attempts he's had on the season.

So you can play the "scared to get my QB hurt on a standard play" game all day long, but clearly the coaching staff doesn't share your view on that.

And if your football coach in pop warner told you to ALWAYS throw the ball away instead of taking a sack, then he was a bad coach. Plenty of circumstances where its better for the TEAM for you not to throw it away, and this was one of them. Not always about you. Its about the team.

My coach taught me to understand situational football, not just do what was in my personal best interest. And I wasn't even being paid for that coaching either.

[Tru11]

8 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

It's called situational football.  If he's smart, he absolutely takes a sack and lets the clock run or makes the Eagles take a TO.  Whether or not he would be smart enough to make that decision is an entirely different argument.

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

[Tru11]

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. This would be the quote... the one I've quoted you on several times already... " no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone if nobody is open. " The one that is blatantly false because it can do significant harm. Good chance you missed owning how wrong it was while you were tripping over yourself as you backpedaled away from it. No worries though... I don't suspect you'll take any ownership of it anytime soon. Will most likely just dance around it or move the goal posts a bit more. I've seen it all.

2. LOL. The kid still thinks its about 40 seconds, as if that 40 seconds isn't everything in a must win game. Let me guess... next you'll say "its only a couple yards", as if a couple yards isn't the difference between playoffs and non playoffs. Except, it is. 

3. Actually, the 40 seconds burns whether they take the timeout or not. Its just a question of when it burns. Because once they are out of timeouts, they can no longer stop the clock. And if they stop it now, they won't be able to stop it later. That's kind of the whole point of running the ball there... it achieves every possible objective. It keeps the clock running, it forces the Eagles to make decisions that will impact the rest of the game, its less riskier, and it can achieve the same rewards as throwing will. And while the Ravens clearly either didn't think about that then or didn't care, they obviously did afterwards, when John called it "one of the stupidest calls he'd seen". Those facts aren't contradicting anything.

4. You keep talking about guarantees as if you offer any of your own. Like I said, you clearly have some sort of fear of a football player getting hurt. News flash... QBs don't actually get injured that often. They get hit dozens of times a season, and most of them never get hurt at all. The percentage of times a QB gets sacked and is actually injured is very, very, very small. If it were as common as you make it seem, I'd expect 32 NFL QBs to be on IR by the end of the year. Clearly, that doesn't happen. 

The reality is the least guaranteed part of this whole discussion is you claiming our o so delicate QB is going to get a boo boo again. 

Since you're so convinced that the coaching staff doesn't share my line of thinking, its pretty clear they don't share yours either. Why? Because they sent their high priced QB back to pass in a condensed space in a situation where running the ball protects him and the team. So clearly, they're not nearly as concerned about losing him to injury as you are, which would also be evidence by the number of passing attempts he's had on the season.

So you can play the "scared to get my QB hurt on a standard play" game all day long, but clearly the coaching staff doesn't share your view on that.

And if your football coach in pop warner told you to ALWAYS throw the ball away instead of taking a sack, then he was a bad coach. Plenty of circumstances where its better for the TEAM for you not to throw it away, and this was one of them. Not always about you. Its about the team.

My coach taught me to understand situational football, not just do what was in my personal best interest. And I wasn't even being paid for that coaching either.

you quoted nothing buddy.

try again pls.

[rmcjacket23]

16 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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 .....

 

What guarantees do you have that Joe won't get strip sacked when he drops back to pass? What guarantees do you have that he won't tear his achilles dropping back to pass? What guarantees do you have he doesn't get struck by lightning?

I'm not even sure why he's even in the game at this point based on the fears you have... he should just be on the sidelines collecting a paycheck and working on his beard. 

[Tru11]

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

You said that there's no harm in throwing an INT there. That statement is incorrect. 

You can move the goal posts as far away from that statement as you want. It doesn't matter. Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, because your statement was wrong. Its not up to interpretation.

where did i say this?

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

[BmoreBird22]

1 minute ago, Tru11 said:

you quoted nothing buddy.

try again pls.

I just find it amusing that he's talking to you about backpedaling and changing the narrative, but all you did was point out that he incorrectly quoted you. And now he's trying to make it as if your entire argument this whole time had been about the incompletion, not the INT comment.

Irony at its finest.

[rmcjacket23]

7 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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.....

That's the point... its not an unnecessary hit. If his only other options are throwing an incompletion or interception, taking a sack becomes necessary. Why? Because its in the teams best interest for him to do so. You know, the team? 

He always has the option to not take a hit. He can just throw it away on every play if he wants to. But that's not whats in the teams best interest.

[rmcjacket23]

2 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

where did i say this?

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

Incompletion is what it meant to say. The thing that now like a half a dozen people completely disagree with you about and you seem to literally be the only one supporting it.

Read Bmore's re-creation above.

Edited December 19, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[Tru11]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

What guarantees do you have that Joe won't get strip sacked when he drops back to pass? What guarantees do you have that he won't tear his achilles dropping back to pass? What guarantees do you have he doesn't get struck by lightning?

I'm not even sure why he's even in the game at this point based on the fears you have... he should just be on the sidelines collecting a paycheck and working on his beard. 

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

[rmcjacket23]

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I just find it amusing that he's talking to you about backpedaling and changing the narrative, but all you did was point out that he incorrectly quoted you. And now he's trying to make it as if your entire argument this whole time had been about the incompletion, not the INT comment.

Irony at its finest.

I wrote INT instead of INC, the original comment was about why Joe should just throw it away, and my point is that he shouldn't just throw it away.

But you already knew that.

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, Tru11 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

All hindsight analysis though (which ironically is all this conversation is). You don't get the luxury in real time of seeing what will happen when you make a decision. You have to make the best decision with the information you have.

The collective decision in total was horrendous and the execution was worse. But taking a sack is a better outcome for the team than throwing it away. All decisions are risky.

And you especially have zero idea what the outcome will be if you change ANY play in ANY game, and especially that one. You have no idea what occurs after that if Joe throws it away instead of throwing an INT. Literally all possible outcomes are open at that point.

Edited December 19, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[Tru11]

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I just find it amusing that he's talking to you about backpedaling and changing the narrative, but all you did was point out that he incorrectly quoted you. And now he's trying to make it as if your entire argument this whole time had been about the incompletion, not the INT comment.

Irony at its finest.

yup.

still waiting on his proof of what i said.

 

[usmccharles]

I don't even know what this debate is and it seems like too much work to go through all of it

[Tru11]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I wrote INT instead of INC, the original comment was about why Joe should just throw it away, and my point is that he shouldn't just throw it away.

But you already knew that.

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.....

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, Tru11 said:

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.....

INC stands for incompletions. As in when you referenced that throwing an incompletion did no harm... kind of the point of the last like 20 posts by literally anybody.

I don't think I have to try much harder. You don't seem to really have anybody agreeing with your position, so what do I really need to try harder at? Should I go track down your o so smart Pee Wee coach and ask him what he thinks? Does that constitute as trying harder?

Somehow I suspect he's going to tell me stories of a lot of hits to the head...