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

[Tru11]

26 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Which was said by absolutely nobody. Couldn't even vaguely be construed as anybody saying anything even close to that. Reading comprehension really is a lost art isn't it? Are you even trying at this point or are you just all aboard the troll train this morning?

And the most ironic post of the day comment goes to...

"no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone if nobody is open."

And yet, there very clearly is significant in harm to just throwing it out of the back of the endzone, as common sense has already shown.

Is it the biggest harm? No, but we weren't discussing what was worse. We were discussing harm. It harms the football team to throw an incomplete pass there, and in more ways than just your standard incompletion.

Try harder.

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

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by The Mom Gene
NO PROFANITY.... :/

[The Mom Gene]

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

I mean cool I guess? I mean what's exactly your point... that Joe shouldn't be SOLELY blamed? OK, I guess your point is proven then?

Its not like he comes out of this looking better because other coaches on the team were as big of idiots as he was at that moment. There's no solace in being an equal idiot.

No, there isn't...  that said...  just like @ravensdfan said.  People have been screaming about conservative playcalling for years too...  We go aggressive and people lose their minds.

 

Just a side thought here????   Waller, Pitta or Smith or ANYONE catches that pass???  Joe's a hero.

[rmcjacket23]

34 minutes ago, ravensdfan said:

Yes it is. But before this week we wanted them to stop settling for FGs. Now we want them to settle for FGs. Just sayin'.

It was an aggressive playcall. That's what everyone wanted. Be aggressive. I don't know that you call it greedy. Everyone screamed about the offense not playing conservative and put the game away. A FG would have made it a 2 score game but a TD? That put it pretty much out of reach.

I disagree with the playcall - just to clarify - but there is no pleasing people. If we run and kick the FG and lose by 2 pts - they'd just be here complaining how we settled for the FG instead of being aggressive.

Well, sort of. We don't really want them to settle for FGs. We want them to run the ball into the endzone. There is a middle ground there. If they got an 11 yard rushing TD on that play instead of an interception, zero people are complaining. Its not like the only way to score there is to "be aggressive" and throw a TD pass.

Heck, we can get a 1st down at the 1 yard line, so we technically have more than 3 downs to score a TD if it works out that way. 

I think that's where the disconnect is. In this case, "being aggressive" classifies as throwing the ball where most teams would have ran it. I don't really consider that an "aggressive" play call. I call it not really having an adequate understanding of game position. 

[AnthonyGames]

I cannot stand reading these comments anymore. We were the #1 rush defense in the league!!! Do you not understand that? Yes, our rush defense was completely terrible in that game, but saying our defense is horrible after that one game? What a joke. If every team had our defense, 90% of them would be in playoff contention. Is our offense and offensive play calling abysmal this year? You can certainly argue that....

We crush the Dolphins: "Joe's elite." "We are winning the Super Bowl." "Things are looking great." "January Joe." "Our Defense is elite."

We barley beat the Eagles (even though would of been a lot better if we didn't fumble on our own 10 and throw a stupid INT on their 10): "We suck." "We are not making playoffs." "Our defense sucks." "Flacco is trash."

 

[usmccharles]

1 minute ago, AnthonyGames said:

I cannot stand reading these comments anymore. We were the #1 rush defense in the league!!! Do you not understand that? Yes, our rush defense was completely terrible in that game, but saying our defense is horrible after that one game? What a joke. If every team had our defense, 90% of them would be in playoff contention. Is our offense and offensive play calling abysmal this year? You can certainly argue that....

We crush the Dolphins: "Joe's elite." "We are winning the Super Bowl." "Things are looking great." "January Joe." "Our Defense is elite."

We barley beat the Eagles (even though would of been a lot better if we didn't fumble on our own 10 and throw a stupid INT on their 10): "We suck." "We are not making playoffs." "Our defense sucks." "Flacco is trash."

I cant really tell if your complaining, or you are complaining about others complaining. 

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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 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.

[rmcjacket23]

11 minutes ago, The Mom Gene said:

No, there isn't...  that said...  just like @ravensdfan said.  People have been screaming about conservative playcalling for years too...  We go aggressive and people lose their minds.

 

Just a side thought here????   Waller, Pitta or Smith or ANYONE catches that pass???  Joe's a hero.

But that's the whole... we're calling it "aggressive" when I'm not even really sure why its "aggressive"? Because we threw the ball its all of the sudden "aggressive"?

Plus there's very clearly this false perception that fans want us to be aggressive all the time. There's times to be aggressive and there's times to be smart. Aggression during times where aggression doesn't yield significantly more value than being conservative doesn't really have a purpose. This would be one of those times. Again, there is a middle ground. Its not a be aggressive 100% of the time or 0% of the time proposition. 

Joe's not a hero for throwing a TD pass there... we had a 10 point lead with 6 minutes left against the team who struggled to move the ball via the air. He's no bigger of a hero for throwing a TD there than Tucker is for making a chip shot FG. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[ravensdfan]

2 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

But that's the whole... we're calling it "aggressive" when I'm not even really sure why its "aggressive"? Because we threw the ball its all of the sudden "aggressive"?

Joe's not a hero for throwing a TD pass there... we had a 10 point lead with 6 minutes left against the team who struggled to move the ball via the air. He's no bigger of a hero for throwing a TD there than Tucker is for making a chip shot FG. 

Sure he is. That would have essentially put the game out of reach.

It's aggressive because we run it 3 times and don't get in - what do you call that? Conservative play calling. Calling that pass is definitely being aggressive in that scenario.

I mean if you don't call keeping the ball on the ground conservative - what would be considered being conservative in that situation? Kneeling?

[Tru11]

6 minutes 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.

I said there is no harm in throwing it out the end of the endZone if nobody is open....

practice what you preach buddy

[rmw10]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

But that's the whole... we're calling it "aggressive" when I'm not even really sure why its "aggressive"? Because we threw the ball its all of the sudden "aggressive"?

Joe's not a hero for throwing a TD pass there... we had a 10 point lead with 6 minutes left against the team who struggled to move the ball via the air. He's no bigger of a hero for throwing a TD there than Tucker is for making a chip shot FG. 

It's aggressive because we took an unnecessary risk when we likely could have just played it safe and put the game away.  If you run the ball there and score a TD - great, the score is out of hand.  If run the ball there and don't get a TD right off the bat - good, you just ran some time off the clock and still have an opportunity to get the ball in 2 more times.  Instead, we got the "offense has something to prove" decision again, which wasn't a smart football decision.

[January J]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

But that's the whole... we're calling it "aggressive" when I'm not even really sure why its "aggressive"? Because we threw the ball its all of the sudden "aggressive"?

Joe's not a hero for throwing a TD pass there... we had a 10 point lead with 6 minutes left against the team who struggled to move the ball via the air. He's no bigger of a hero for throwing a TD there than Tucker is for making a chip shot FG. 

Very true but I guarantee you everybody would've been praising him for going for the throat instead of settling there. But like you said..who's to say running the ball wouldn't have resulted in  a TD anyway? With the way we were running the ball who's to say a sweep or even a reverse wasnt an           " aggressive " play call. Doesn't matter  who you put the blame on- Joe just HAS to be more careful there. Not a time to be throwing into tight windows.

[frozen joe flacco fan]

1 hour ago, rmw10 said:

I think it was an awful decision to pass even before the interception, but it certainly looks a lot worse in hindsight since we actually saw the ending result.  But yes, I agree.  All the way around, on all 3 guys, they got greedy.  It was just the wrong time to be greedy.  I don't mind aggressiveness, but in no way shape or form was that a good time for it.

You are absolutely right! The management team was trying to put the game away. They could smell blood in the water so to speak. It was but one more example of what the fans have been calling for all year --- be more aggressive. The fans can't have it both ways. It was another example of poor situational decision-making, i.e, it was the wrong time and place to throw a pass. We got greedy; we got burned. It was Forrest Gump football --- stupid is as stupid does. That's why you should leave your ego at the door when it comes to decision-making. It was clearly a bad decision on Marty's part and a bad decision on Joe's part but a horrendous decision on John's part not to veto the call. As they say, the past is prologue and nothing will change until our management team changes. Where's Kyle Shanahan when you need him? Haven't the dirty birds scored at least 40 points now in 5 games? Oh well! Fiddly dee, fiddly dumb! Tomorrow's another day!  

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, ravensdfan said:

Sure he is. That would have essentially put the game out of reach.

It's aggressive because we run it 3 times and don't get in - what do you call that? Conservative play calling. Calling that pass is definitely being aggressive in that scenario.

I mean if you don't call keeping the ball on the ground conservative - what would be considered being conservative in that situation? Kneeling?

Or maybe its called being reckless. 

I mean again I feel like some of you guys are back on this "100% aggressive or 100% conservative" take. I don't get it.

Running it 1st down doesn't mean that we run it on 2nd down or 3rd down. That, like practically most game situations, but depend on the success of that play. If you run for say 6-7 yards, then yes, we almost certainly run it again and maybe again. We get stuffed for 0-1 yards, 2nd down is probably a passing down now, with likely a different play call against a different defensive mindset.

I mean are we basically saying that passing = aggressive and running = conservative, or is that just in this particular case? I mean if you're going to "be aggressive" and throw the ball there, you're basically saying that you don't care about the clock and game situation. If so, then fine. But then when we do that exact same thing in the 1st or 2nd quarter of the game, fans are literally screaming for us to run the ball in the red zone, and here we are throwing it. Is that aggressive? If so, why are so many fans clamoring for conservatism then, when aggression would make more sense?

Or play it out further... throw it on 1st down and its incomplete. Now what? You running it on 2nd down or are you throwing it? Is throwing it on 2nd and 10 now aggressive? I don't think so. Imagine if we threw it 3 straight times (which you might, if you throw an incompletion on 1st), get 2 or 3 incompletions and then kick a FG? How much outrage from the universe would there be for that? Answer... a ton. 

Basically comes back to the whole beginning concept... seems like nobody really thought this out and said to themselves "what are we trying to accomplish here"? Obviously scoring a TD is a goal, but nobody asked how we do it or what the best way to do it was.

 

[rmcjacket23]

7 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

I said there is no harm in throwing it out the end of the endZone if nobody is open....

practice what you preach buddy

And there is harm. As I already showed you. 

Taking a sack is better than throwing it out of the endzone there. One keeps the clock running, one doesn't. 

If the clock stops running without us scoring a TD, harm has been created. Again, not a debatable concept.

[Tank 92]

5 hours ago, OUravensfan said:

It's unfortunate Flacco made that one mistake at the end of the game, had he not, we're all singing a different tune as we're looking at a nice 30 point performance with minimal TOP, let's just all be happy we're still alive, while not preferable everyone agrees ugly wins > pretty losses.

I think many are singing off key.  lol   The pick was a poor play, but doesn't blow up everything else that was accomplished.  It was still a nice 27 point performance with minimal TOP, poor O line play, dropped passes, etc..                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

[DomMcRaven]

11 hours ago, jboy19 said:

If any other team in the league went from 5 wins to 8 wins (with two games left) and a shot at the playoffs, they'd be praising the FO and coach and worried that one or two of their coordinators would get picked off. 

Right?!?! The fact that we have a top 5 defense without a #2 CB and consistent pass-rush is pretty amazing tbh. Couple that with an underachieving offense. In the winless month of October, we lost by 1 to OAK (darn you Aiken), 6 to WSH, 4 to NYG, and 8 to NYJ (smh). The only game we lost by more than one possession was against DAL, but even then it was 24-17 for awhile before their late FG to push it to 27-17.

Talking about an crucial offseason coming, we successful address these holes and we'll be a 10-win team next season (barring significant injuries/suspensions).

[ellicottraven]

1 hour ago, The Mom Gene said:

Yup...  He said it during his presser....  He didn't think.  He said he thought "a third TD pass for the day".  So he was thinking stats.  And I agree with Tru.  He should have looked at the play as it unfolded and thrown it out the back of the endzone. He had two  more chances at it after that...  I watched the Dallas/Washington game last night.  A GREAT O-Line looks like what they have in Dallas.  They gave Prescott all day long...  That pocket was so clean you could eat off of it.  The sad part is that Zuttah is constantly owned by the opposing team.  And when I hear people say that Joe should just throw it away, you'd be surprised how often he'd have to.  He very rarely has a good pocket.  So, yeah, the O-line has been less than abysmal

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.

[OUravensfan]

2 minutes ago, Tank 92 said:

I think many are singing off key.  lol   The pick was a poor play, but doesn't blow up everything else that was accomplished.  It was still a nice 27 point performance with minimal TOP, poor O line play, dropped passes, etc..                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Yea some of our fan base expects perfection on every single play, drive, quarter,half, game and season, the other team is comprised of paid professionals top to bottom as well, it's hard, it's the NFL.

[Tru11]

26 minutes 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.

guess you are not going to admit how wrong you where for this none sense ?

7 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And there is harm. As I already showed you. 

Taking a sack is better than throwing it out of the endzone there. One keeps the clock running, one doesn't. 

If the clock stops running without us scoring a TD, harm has been created. Again, not a debatable concept.

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...

 

[OUravensfan]

1 minute ago, Tru11 said:

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'll say this, you two have made the airport very entertaining for me lol

[OUravensfan]

6 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

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...

 

The worst part is if Joe just waits a half second longer it's an easy TD to Waller

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, Tru11 said:

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...

 

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.

2. The risk of fumbling is the same as the risk of him attempting to throw a ball away and not being successful at it. By asking him to throw it away, you too are putting him at risk. You are putting him at risk for injury which you already alluded to, as well as putting him at risk of not being able to throw the ball away, i.e. getting hit while attempting to throw it away or getting stripped while doing so. Both can and do happen, since we are playing the hypothetical game to the max.

3. Losing 5 yards is an easy trade off to get another 40 seconds run off the clock OR force the Eagles to use a timeout, which they have a finite amount of. Its unlikely they would start using their TOs with 6 minutes left anyway, and if they did, then great. We run the ball, kick a FG, and they're down two scores with no time outs left, making it extremely difficult to even get the ball twice.

4. Throwing it away on 1st down also makes it less attractive or likely to run it on 2nd down, because you now have less downs to work with. So if the Eagles don't take a timeout, you might run 2-3 plays, convert nothing, and the Eagles didn't have to burn a timeout OR take off meaningful clock time.

Doesn't seem like you've really thought this through...

[Tru11]

7 minutes ago, OUravensfan said:

I'll say this, you two have made the airport very entertaining for me lol

YW lol

[The Mom Gene]

1 hour ago, rmw10 said:

It's aggressive because we took an unnecessary risk when we likely could have just played it safe and put the game away.  If you run the ball there and score a TD - great, the score is out of hand.  If run the ball there and don't get a TD right off the bat - good, you just ran some time off the clock and still have an opportunity to get the ball in 2 more times.  Instead, we got the "offense has something to prove" decision again, which wasn't a smart football decision.

Perfect message....  that's exactly right.

32 minutes ago, OUravensfan said:

I'll say this, you two have made the airport very entertaining for me lol

[The Mom Gene]

50 minutes 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.

They're crazy.....  Zuttah should NEVER score in the 80's.  He's been awful this year....  and last year.

[The Mom Gene]

51 minutes 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.

I will say that Stanley and Yanda have and do deserve better grades.  Even considering Yanda is playing injured (as he just does).  But Ducasse and Zuttah have hurt us badly in many games...  with their penalties and inadequate protection.

[frozen joe flacco fan]

39 minutes ago, OUravensfan said:

Yea some of our fan base expects perfection on every single play, drive, quarter,half, game and season, the other team is comprised of paid professionals top to bottom as well, it's hard, it's the NFL.

You speak the truth but St. Vincent of Lombardi had something to say about perfection, i.e., "...its not attainable but we'll strive for it and achieve excellence."

In the final analysis, its all about defense. When we have held our opponents to 20 points or less this year, our record is 7-1. When we have allowed our opponents to score more than 20 points, our record is 1-5. Ironically, when our opponents scored >20 points, our lone win was against the Eagles who could have easily beaten us. What our fan base fails to realize is football is not as complicated as some of them want to believe. Its about TOP, field position, minimizing mistakes and third down efficiency on both sides of the ball. There is significant room for improvement in all those areas if we want to compete for another Super Bowl.

[Tru11]

41 minutes 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.

2. The risk of fumbling is the same as the risk of him attempting to throw a ball away and not being successful at it. By asking him to throw it away, you too are putting him at risk. You are putting him at risk for injury which you already alluded to, as well as putting him at risk of not being able to throw the ball away, i.e. getting hit while attempting to throw it away or getting stripped while doing so. Both can and do happen, since we are playing the hypothetical game to the max.

3. Losing 5 yards is an easy trade off to get another 40 seconds run off the clock OR force the Eagles to use a timeout, which they have a finite amount of. Its unlikely they would start using their TOs with 6 minutes left anyway, and if they did, then great. We run the ball, kick a FG, and they're down two scores with no time outs left, making it extremely difficult to even get the ball twice.

4. Throwing it away on 1st down also makes it less attractive or likely to run it on 2nd down, because you now have less downs to work with. So if the Eagles don't take a timeout, you might run 2-3 plays, convert nothing, and the Eagles didn't have to burn a timeout OR take off meaningful clock time.

Doesn't seem like you've really thought this through...

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.....
 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Tru11

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, The Mom Gene said:

They're crazy.....  Zuttah should NEVER score in the 80's.  He's been awful this year....  and last year.

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.

[frozen joe flacco fan]

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

But that's the whole... we're calling it "aggressive" when I'm not even really sure why its "aggressive"? Because we threw the ball its all of the sudden "aggressive"?

Plus there's very clearly this false perception that fans want us to be aggressive all the time. There's times to be aggressive and there's times to be smart. Aggression during times where aggression doesn't yield significantly more value than being conservative doesn't really have a purpose. This would be one of those times. Again, there is a middle ground. Its not a be aggressive 100% of the time or 0% of the time proposition. 

Joe's not a hero for throwing a TD pass there... we had a 10 point lead with 6 minutes left against the team who struggled to move the ball via the air. He's no bigger of a hero for throwing a TD there than Tucker is for making a chip shot FG. 

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.