| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| If we lose? Which Edward Norton are you? |
| Gif 1: Grr... but, I'd rather take it on on my computer.. |
|
44% |
[ 4 ] |
| Gif 2: Grr... My computer costs too much, a nose is easily fixed. |
|
33% |
[ 3 ] |
| Neither: I'll be upset, but what would my girlfriend think? |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Other: I have a little brother for these things, so I'm covered. ;) |
|
22% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message |
SnA ExclusiVe
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 18104
Location: Spokane, WA
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| GaTechRavens wrote: | | BaltimoreTerp wrote: | Just saw these postgame comments from Harbaugh regarding Dickson... certainly eye opening compared to the usual coachspeak:
| Quote: | Aaron Wilson @RavensInsider 14m
John Harbaugh on Ed Dickson: 'You got that kind of talent and those kind of gifts, go play ball.'
John Harbaugh on Ed Dickson catching 54 passes two seasons ago: 'He's not the same player now that he was then.'
John Harbaugh on Ed Dickson: 'Ed needs to catch the ball. If he's thinking about anything besides that, he's doing himself a disservice.'
Aaron Wilson @RavensInsider 10m
John Harbaugh on Ed Dickson, who has six dropped passes this season: 'If he has a confidence problem, that's on him.' |
He also called out Gradkowski, though not quite in the same sort of biting way the Dickson comments were. I've never really hard Harbaugh call out players before like this, it's a bit risky but I think it's the right move. They need to be angry and get rid of any remaining complacency after a game like that. You don't pat anyone (on offense) on the back after a game as bad as that one. Though in Dickson's case I don't think it's a matter of trying to build him back up in any way - I doubt we'll see much of him moving forward. Gave him all sort of chances and he has bombed spectacularly.
I feel embarrassed for thinking back in August that he could step in and mitigate the damage of losing Pitta. I knew he'd be a downgrade but I didn't expect him to have completely forgotten how to play football. Joe is already afraid to throw it in his direction and he's lost Harbs now, too. He's done here and it wouldn't surprise me if they make the switch to Furstenburg soon (probably give him some practice time with Joe over the next week or 2 before making the move full-time). I dunno, we'll see. There's no role for Dickson here but it's also hard to know how much trust they have in Furstenburg. But Dickson just flat out sucks. Looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane. |
Ed Dickson caught 54 passes two years ago? Wow. I remember, like, one of those. |
That stat must be including the passes he caught using the JUGS machine every day at practice 
_________________
| Jaguarfan, very clearly NOT on the first page wrote: | | Mich_fan20 wrote: | | First page |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jsnydes
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 1568
Location: Bethlehem PA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| diamondbull424 wrote: | | jsnydes wrote: |
It had nothing to do with him "borderline kneeling." I was absolutely expecting it. As I mentioned, the SAME EXACT THING happened on the previous play. Only difference was he got hit in the body. So obviously EVERYONE was expecting it. I think it was clean that he hit him regardless of if he was kneeling or not. That was EJ's fault. I even agree that in the replay it looked borderline clean. From 30 yards away, it looked high. |
So then what are you suggesting? Are you simply saying that you overreacted at the time of the hit, thinking it was higher than it really was and that after the replay your initial opinion (and that of the refs) was proven wrong?
OR are you saying that somehow the camera lenses used for recording the game were flawed? That they couldn't replicate the actual action happening in the game? That perhaps there was some act of mist induced by some mischievous god to keep mortals from learning the truth of the play while viewing the telecast?
I'm just saying, you can't have it both ways. You either agree that the call was wrong because there was nothing there that was illegal about that hit... or you disagree that the call was wrong and believe that HD lenses don't work very well for recording the game feed for actual football.
I'd say something like, "you can't have your cake and eat it too", but then clearly I'd be wrong. As we both saw with this play. |
That's pretty much what I was saying and this video gives 2-3 views that they didn't show on the telecast. Shows exactly what I was talking about. Your phantom clothes line is better seen here.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/buffalo-bills/0ap2000000254391/Official-Review-Week-4
_________________
TommyC376^^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flaccomania
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 19950
Location: Parkville, MD
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jsnydes wrote: | | diamondbull424 wrote: | | jsnydes wrote: |
It had nothing to do with him "borderline kneeling." I was absolutely expecting it. As I mentioned, the SAME EXACT THING happened on the previous play. Only difference was he got hit in the body. So obviously EVERYONE was expecting it. I think it was clean that he hit him regardless of if he was kneeling or not. That was EJ's fault. I even agree that in the replay it looked borderline clean. From 30 yards away, it looked high. |
So then what are you suggesting? Are you simply saying that you overreacted at the time of the hit, thinking it was higher than it really was and that after the replay your initial opinion (and that of the refs) was proven wrong?
OR are you saying that somehow the camera lenses used for recording the game were flawed? That they couldn't replicate the actual action happening in the game? That perhaps there was some act of mist induced by some mischievous god to keep mortals from learning the truth of the play while viewing the telecast?
I'm just saying, you can't have it both ways. You either agree that the call was wrong because there was nothing there that was illegal about that hit... or you disagree that the call was wrong and believe that HD lenses don't work very well for recording the game feed for actual football.
I'd say something like, "you can't have your cake and eat it too", but then clearly I'd be wrong. As we both saw with this play. |
That's pretty much what I was saying and this video gives 2-3 views that they didn't show on the telecast. Shows exactly what I was talking about. Your phantom clothes line is better seen here.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/buffalo-bills/0ap2000000254391/Official-Review-Week-4 |
All I see in that clip is Suggs making a legal hit, and when he reaches over to use his hand to get himself up, his arm happens to slide across Manuel's facemask. Most certainly not personal foul worthy.
_________________
^ I don't quite get why simon made this my losing sig about the Chiefs.
XBL GT: kanxalanx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SnA ExclusiVe
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 18104
Location: Spokane, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't see anything wrong with what Suggs did in that video, even from the endzone shot. If anything, that just confirms how bogus the call was on the field and how much panic Boger had because Manuel's helmet came off.
Helmet off = "IT MUST'VE BEEN A DIRTY HIT!!!"
_________________
| Jaguarfan, very clearly NOT on the first page wrote: | | Mich_fan20 wrote: | | First page |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
