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

[Tru11]

4 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

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.

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.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, Tru11 said:

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.

 

And apparently NFL teams would disagree with you, as QBs are often criticized for just the decisions you advocate. Remember, its not up to you to decide when he "does or doesn't have to". That's not a decision you can objectively make. Its about determining what's best for the team at that time, and you don't get to make that call.

I saw zero concern from this coaching staff about his well being based on the play calling they made yesterday or all season long.

[mg90]

3 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

the C and T are miles apart.

Somehow I make errors like that all the time. And realize them only after send is pressed.

[Tru11]

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

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...

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.
 

[rmcjacket23]

6 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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.
 

Nope. It means I did something I do often... miskeyed a word or even several words. Difference here is I usually go back and proofread afterwards and correct, which I did not in this case. If you saw my posts before I re-read and edit them, this would not be surprising to you.

Try doing it on a small tablet device and see how close you think any letter is to another...

Edited December 19, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[Tru11]

8 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And apparently NFL teams would disagree with you, as QBs are often criticized for just the decisions you advocate. Remember, its not up to you to decide when he "does or doesn't have to". That's not a decision you can objectively make. Its about determining what's best for the team at that time, and you don't get to make that call.

I saw zero concern from this coaching staff about his well being based on the play calling they made yesterday or all season long.

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.

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, Tru11 said:

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.

Taken with no context whatsoever, sure. When you factor in important things like time of game, situation, etc., things aren't as black and white as you want them to be.

Its the equivalent of a RB running out of bounds instead of staying in bounds to keep the clock running at the end of the game. He's running out of bounds to avoid "unnecessary contact", yet he's hurting his team by stopping the clock.

Same basic premise. Again, you have some sort of weird perception that a QB getting sacked leads to injury a lot. That's not actually true. Can't tell you how many times I've seen Peyton Manning curl up in the fetal position in bounds to keep the clock running when he had nobody to throw it to instead of throwing it out of bounds. And he lived to play another play somehow. Still a sack, still as healthy as he was before, still the clock keeps ticking.

This isn't that hard of a concept to understand.

I'll see if I can track down one particular example on Flacco, but I believe either earlier this season or last season he was criticized for doing something similar, i.e. throwing the ball away that stopped the clock when a "give up" sack would have been preferred.

 

[Willbacker]

If the Ravens were worried about clock control they wouldn't have called a passing play. Just a straight up INC could have occurred or maybe even an INJ which would have a lot of INK about it.

[Tru11]

17 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Nope. It means I did something I do often... miskeyed a word or even several words. Difference here is I usually go back and proofread afterwards and correct, which I did not in this case. If you saw my posts before I re-read and edit them, this would not be surprising to you.

Try doing it on a small tablet device and see how close you think any letter is to another...

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.
 

 

 

 

[robbie29]

Well we won last December's game vs Pittsburgh, with a 4-10 record and backup QB so anything is possible. Regardless, I'm going to be spiking the eggnog with plenty of rum for Sunday's game.

[codizzle]

41 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

If the Ravens were worried about clock control they wouldn't have called a passing play. Just a straight up INC could have occurred or maybe even an INJ which would have a lot of INK about it.

+35 

[rmcjacket23]

27 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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.
 

 

 

 

Or you could have just realized the same thing everybody else realized, which was that we were referencing incompletions, not interceptions. If you notice, literally no other post even made reference to interceptions.

I think if you asked around to your fellow posters on the subject, I don't think you'd get on agreement with you on who the "butt" was, particularly given that you couldn't even get a single agreement on your position anyway.

Good luck with that.

[rmcjacket23]

28 minutes ago, robbie29 said:

Well we won last December's game vs Pittsburgh, with a 4-10 record and backup QB so anything is possible. Regardless, I'm going to be spiking the eggnog with plenty of rum for Sunday's game.

That was also at home.

[Militant X 1]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

That was also at home.

Agreed!

Grateful for their win but for the Ravens to need to win out their last 3 games and to allow the 5-8 Eagles to hang with them in that manner at home in Baltimore doesn't really give me the utmost confidence in them to go "on the road" into Pittsburgh and come out with a "W".  I'm not saying that it's impossible for them to do that because they've done it in seasons past but definitely challenging this season based upon their gameplay throughout the season.

The Steelers on the other hand have won 4 games in a row with 3 of them being "road" games. Christmas Day will be interesting!  

All I can say is that somebody better ice up son......cause here come the RAVENS....

[Tru11]

 

50 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Or you could have just realized the same thing everybody else realized, which was that we were referencing incompletions, not interceptions. If you notice, literally no other post even made reference to interceptions.

I think if you asked around to your fellow posters on the subject, I don't think you'd get on agreement with you on who the "butt" was, particularly given that you couldn't even get a single agreement on your position anyway.

Good luck with that.

Or if you mean INC you say INC rather then INT.

its probably a to radical concept for you to grasp.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Tru11

[Gtown Purple]

1 hour ago, Willbacker said:

If the Ravens were worried about clock control they wouldn't have called a passing play. Just a straight up INC could have occurred or maybe even an INJ which would have a lot of INK about it.

this

 

Considering the eagles scored with barely any time left, milking any clock would have sealed it.

[Moderator 3]

Okay you two (and you know who you are), knock it off.

[ravensdfan]

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

That was also at home.

We swept them so we also beat them in Pittsburgh.

[BmoreBird22]

3 hours 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 thing is, I don't think people would even bat an eye at a missed letter or give you grief, but you came with this better than him attitude and kept saying he made a mistake when it was clearly you.

I mean, shoot, I think the entire argument is extremely stupid. I think throwing it away or dropping for a sack would have been world's better than what happened and I think we can all agree on that.

[robbie29]

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

That was also at home.

Debbie Downer

[Tru11]

3 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

The thing is, I don't think people would even bat an eye at a missed letter or give you grief, but you came with this better than him attitude and kept saying he made a mistake when it was clearly you.

I mean, shoot, I think the entire argument is extremely stupid. I think throwing it away or dropping for a sack would have been world's better than what happened and I think we can all agree on that.

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....

 

[rossihunter2]

13 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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....

 

but those options arent mutually exlcusive - it was a first down play - you can take the sack on first down, run the clock and then also live to go for it two more times at least

they made an aggressive call but i imagine that if it had been an incompletion they might have run the next play to get the clock going and see if they could shorten the yardage - they were virtually guaranteed a field goal at that point

and the timeout had little to do with burning the clock - they'd burned all the clock they could - im pretty sure they called the timeout because they were running out of playclock

obviously this is all kind of moot because joe did neither of the two things you're arguing about - he threw a pick towards a receiver who was well covered anyway even if the linebacker hadnt been there

and you have to think situationally - when there are only 6 minutes left on the clock - 35 seconds becomes way more important than 7 points - at a minimum if you take that sack and then run twice - you take out probably nearly two minutes of clock and still can put a field goal through which is big because it forces two touchdowns rather than a touchdown and a field goal which was nearly our undoing...

[rmcjacket23]

2 hours ago, ravensdfan said:

We swept them so we also beat them in Pittsburgh.

Yes, without Big Ben. And it was more referencing the fact that winning a home game against Big Ben with a backup is a lot easier than winning one on the road.

[rmcjacket23]

59 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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....

 

1. You're excluding option 3, which is to be conservative AND still score a TD, which is entirely possible. This is unequivocally the best option, because it accomplishes both things you want to set out to do... score a TD AND reduce the clock or force Philly to use their precious timeouts.

Its called you run the ball once, twice, or even three times. You're 11 yards from the end zone. You can run it on first and second down, gain 4-5 yards, then throw it on 3rd down. Frankly, the playbook is wide open with almost any play call and any design in that spot. Hell, you don't even need a TD... you can technically get a first down at the 1 yard line.

Not sure why so many fans view this as we only had two options... kick a FG or go for a TD. You can quite literally play for both in this instance and can achieve either based on execution... and both can require very little risk. 

2. As others have alluded to, we took a timeout with not much time left on the play clock (the timeout was taken 35 seconds after the snap of the previous play, which was a 50+ yard completion to Wallace), so you could probably say we cost ourselves maybe 5-10 seconds. Timeout likely was to reset an establish a gameplan after a long play. 

[kjbmore]

17 hours ago, OUravensfan said:

Yea you're right, if Joe waits a second more he has an easy TD. Forcing it to Steve, at least that won't happen next season for better or worse.

Actually looking forward to our Offense without Steve. Think we force it his way too much

[Tru11]

4 hours ago, rossihunter2 said:

but those options arent mutually exlcusive - it was a first down play - you can take the sack on first down, run the clock and then also live to go for it two more times at least

they made an aggressive call but i imagine that if it had been an incompletion they might have run the next play to get the clock going and see if they could shorten the yardage - they were virtually guaranteed a field goal at that point

and the timeout had little to do with burning the clock - they'd burned all the clock they could - im pretty sure they called the timeout because they were running out of playclock

obviously this is all kind of moot because joe did neither of the two things you're arguing about - he threw a pick towards a receiver who was well covered anyway even if the linebacker hadnt been there

and you have to think situationally - when there are only 6 minutes left on the clock - 35 seconds becomes way more important than 7 points - at a minimum if you take that sack and then run twice - you take out probably nearly two minutes of clock and still can put a field goal through which is big because it forces two touchdowns rather than a touchdown and a field goal which was nearly our undoing...

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.

 

 

[Tank 92]

Regardless of the circumstances, if the Ravens can't be confident of a win with a two score lead and 4 minutes left in a game then there are huge issues.

[Tru11]

1 minute ago, Tank 92 said:

Regardless of the circumstances, if the Ravens can't be confident of a win with a two score lead and 4 minutes left in a game then there are huge issues.

the defense has not been clutch for a while in those situations and they where missing their top corner so huge issues in an understatement lol

[Jacquouille]

8 hours ago, kjbmore said:

Actually looking forward to our Offense without Steve. Think we force it his way too much

That may be right. For all the talk about how many weapons Flacco had, I think the one thing he needs is an elite Oline. If he has that he can work with average receivers.

[BmoreBird22]

8 hours ago, kjbmore said:

Actually looking forward to our Offense without Steve. Think we force it his way too much

Pitta, Wallace, and Sr. are all averaging about 7 targets a game.