RunTheBall Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I went back a few pages and couldn't find this topic covered, although I bet it has been, so I'd like to get some opinions. Were our players throwing cheap shots? I didn't notice anything during the game, and I'd like to believe they are above that. Is Martz just being a whiney B word? I thought Mularkey handled the situation well. RunTheBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I went back a few pages and couldn't find this topic covered, although I bet it has been, so I'd like to get some opinions. Were our players throwing cheap shots? I didn't notice anything during the game, and I'd like to believe they are above that. Is Martz just being a whiney B word? I thought Mularkey handled the situation well. RunTheBall 132852[/snapback] Cheap shots? Nothing but top shelf for our boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Cheap shots? Nothing but top shelf for our boys. 132867[/snapback] Keg's on a roll tonight folks...look out! (Depends-you crack me up... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 If Martz or Duce Staley or Tony Gonzalez accuse the Pats of chicanery, you guys lap it up like hardcore Muslims being spoon-fed the latest Al-Jazeera propaganda yet when they accuse the Bills of shenanigans all of a sudden its called whining and being a sore loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 If Martz or Duce Staley or Tony Gonzalez accuse the Pats of chicanery, you guys lap it up like hardcore Muslims being spoon-fed the latest Al-Jazeera propaganda yet when they accuse the Bills of shenanigans all of a sudden its called whining and being a sore loser. 132922[/snapback] You really think Gonzalez wasn't mugged on that Harrison interception, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I asked a similar question after the game about Clements' cheap shot. Here's teh thread if you're interested. Clements' cheap shot when they accuse the Bills of shenanigans all of a sudden its called whining and being a sore loser. Wtf are you talking about? He wasn't whining or being a sore loser, the guy just asked a simple question. geeeesh..... P.S. When I called Harison a dirtbag the other day, in my vernacular that was a compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 putz. the truth of the matter is, mike martz doesn't like hitting in this game. if he had it his way, he would put flags on everyone's waist and disallow any touching by DBs. SCores in his game would be 119-110. safe prediction: mike martz will not be coaching an nfl team in two years. he will continue to bring that franchise down from the heights to which dick vermeil built them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 As previously noted, the Clements-Holt hit was a cheapy. Clements' excuse was "you did it to me first", to which Holt supposedly said that on HIS cut-blocks he was going after Nate's lower leg, not his knee. Groce got rolled up on when someone knocked Tucker down on the INT return. Fisher was injured on the Moulds end-around. If anyone has a tape, I'd be curious as to how those plays looked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 If anyone has a tape, I'd be curious as to how those plays looked. I didn't see either "block", but I did read from an independent source not associated with the Rams (can't remember who.....LenP?) that Tucker did cut one of the DB's from the backside. I won't agree or dispute but I will say Tucker is a nasty muther and it wouldn't surprise me. As for Nate's cut being a reaction to Holt's cut, I hadn't heard that. If it's true I take back my censure of Nate. There is nothing more infuriating than having some kitty WR like Holt going after your knees and while I don't applaud Nate for giving it back to him, I do applaud him for showing the restraint not to punch Holt in the neck and draw a 15yrdr. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I do applaud him for showing the restraint not to punch Holt in the neck and draw a 15yrdr.Cya 133023[/snapback] That's an excellent way to put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 And on an INT return, just about anything can happen. (Sapp on Clifton comes to mind, as do various QBs getting ear-holed.) Agree, though, Tucker does have that rep. Sure ticked Gibson off to spark that melee during camp... Re: Nate/Holt, I thought that was a BS comeback by Torry. What, you weren't trying to blow up his knee, you were only trying to break his leg? And you were surprised he decided to retaliate in kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 If Martz or Duce Staley or Tony Gonzalez accuse the Pats of chicanery, you guys lap it up like hardcore Muslims being spoon-fed the latest Al-Jazeera propaganda yet when they accuse the Bills of shenanigans all of a sudden its called whining and being a sore loser. 132922[/snapback] Probably because, regardless of the whether or not the Bills took cheap shots, for Martz to all but blame the loss on it is craven and cowardly. Martz wants to B word about cheap shots? Fine...but first explain why your team immolated itself in the third quarter to the tune of 20 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Probably because, regardless of the whether or not the Bills took cheap shots, for Martz to all but blame the loss on it is craven and cowardly. Martz wants to B word about cheap shots? Fine...but first explain why your team immolated itself in the third quarter to the tune of 20 points. 133047[/snapback] Not only that, but also blew a 10 point lead to a team that folded like a cheap suit just one week earlier. Nice coaching. Nothing better than 8 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter, the BILLS having run ONE offensive play since halftime, with 14 points on the scoreboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 That's an excellent way to put it. 133032[/snapback] Helmets are the true mother of invention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Lets call a spade a spade....what Clements did was fugging CHEAP. Not only that, he did it during a play that Holt would never have expected (being on DEFENSE and nowhere near the ball). I'd like to believe Clements' story about Holt doing it first but I'm not sure what to think. Even if it is true, then Clements should not have retaliated. That would not have flown on Levy's watch. On the other two, Martz is absolutely full of sh*t. Basically what happened is there was one cheap shot the whole game (Holt/Clements) which everybody saw. So being the p*ssy sore loser who takes no responsibiliy that he is, he tried to turn two other CB injuries into cheap shots because he thought people would believe him after seeing what Nate did so clearly on TV. Like DC said, he was basically trying to deflect the blame from his piss-poor coaching and put it on us for "cheap-shotting" them out of the game. Loser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayg Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Both. I went back a few pages and couldn't find this topic covered, although I bet it has been, so I'd like to get some opinions. Were our players throwing cheap shots? I didn't notice anything during the game, and I'd like to believe they are above that. Is Martz just being a whiney B word? I thought Mularkey handled the situation well. RunTheBall 132852[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Honestly, who cares? We're talking about a coach on his last legs who will say whatever necessary to deflect blame from himself. Really, if it were a real football freak behind the team would Martz even have a job? I don't think so. Let's please let this go and not blow it further out of proportion. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I'm sure MarPutz is a conspiratorialist at heart. He had 2 1/2 defensive backs go out of the game due to lower leg/knee injuries. In his pregame planning he and whatever passes as a defensive coaching staff in St. Louie figured they'd be able to bottle up Moulds, Evans, and Reed like oh-so-many other teams have this year. Then to see them fall apart and get carted off the field one after the other, I'm sure he was in denial. Because afterall - the man IS a genius. So it logically follows that because his intellectual superiority allows him to craft a superior gameplan to that of any ROOKIE head coach, any outcome other than a big W for the Rims is simply illogical and could only be explained by cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_BillsinDallas_* Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Holt himself said that the recievers for St. Louis are coached to cut defensive backs. Having played competive sports for seventeen yearw we always had a saying: "What comes around goes around" It is in the interest of the Bills to confront challenges brought to them by other teams or they would become targets for the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Lets call a spade a spade....what Clements did was fugging CHEAP. Not only that, he did it during a play that Holt would never have expected (being on DEFENSE and nowhere near the ball). I'd like to believe Clements' story about Holt doing it first but I'm not sure what to think. Even if it is true, then Clements should not have retaliated. That would not have flown on Levy's watch. Loser OK, Mr.Simpson......... BTW, Levy no longer coaches the Bills. Spade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts