Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 I'm not defending Mularkey, I'm defending reality. 778166[/snapback] WHAT?!?! The guy got run out of Schittsburgh. He got run out of Buffalo. If the "offense" keeps up like this in MyHammy, he'll be run out there, too. He's a latter-day Rich Kotite!
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Every single time there was a 50/50 call, the zebras on the field called it on our favor.That blown call on the Losman fumble was as ridiculous as it was huge. They tried to give the Bills the ball on a Walker "fumble" that was clearly not a fumble. Culpepper's second fumble was a result of Schobel grabbing Ronnie Brown by the jersey. That's all I can think of offhand but there were a bunch of times during my film review that I remember thinking, thanks Mr Stripes. And only twice where I groaned at questionable calls (Reed's block and a weak holding call on Reyes that negated a nice McGahee pick-up). Yeah, I thought the Welker fumble was a call that the zebras should make correctly the FIRST time, and not need it to be challenged. As for the quick whistle on JP's sack, I think they did the right thing since he was in the grasp, had his forward momentum stopped, and was vulnerable with another Dolphin bearing-down. And even if they didn't whistle it, the ball would have been picked-up by one of the Bills most likely. At best it likely cost the Dols about 4 yards in field position and at best it saved JP from extreme harm. As for the Culpepper fumble, I didn't see it so I can't comment on it. And I saw some bad calls that went against the Bills. But this was NOTHING like last weekend.
TPS Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 If Mularkey had called that bubblescreen on firstdown from the 10(which is something he would have tried), this board would have been in a tizzy for 9 months. 778113[/snapback] Is a WR screen considered a "gimmick" play? By the way, with the exception of the .03 seconds of "pre" contact, it was very well-executed.
smokinandjokin Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 I beg to differ. Since the pass was behind the line of scrimmage you can engage a defender inside the 5 yards allowed even while the ball is in the air. That play worked to perfection and the ref blew the call. 778172[/snapback] You could be right, I'm far from a rule expert. I heard John Murphy on WGR this morning, and he said he asked the NFL head of officials for an explanation. What I posted was the explanation John Murphy received. Basically, it was interference as the defender was trying to make a play on the ball that was a forward pass. Behind the LOS had nothing to do with it.
Nervous Guy Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Moving picks are illegal. And Reed wasn't moving, merely standing in his established postion which should be his to claim and maintain. 778174[/snapback] Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched. (b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass. © Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.
East Brady Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Yep. I just rewatched it and while Parrish comes back and catches the ball behind the LOS, Reed is blocking beyond the LOS before the ball gets there. 778128[/snapback] This is why Kelso said on the radio, that is never called OPI .... it should not have been a penalty... I'll take his word for it . He actually played in the NFL......
EndZoneCrew Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 during my film review 778163[/snapback]
wnyguy Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 You could be right, I'm far from a rule expert. I heard John Murphy on WGR this morning, and he said he asked the NFL head of officials for an explanation. What I posted was the explanation John Murphy received. Basically, it was interference as the defender was trying to make a play on the ball that was a forward pass. Behind the LOS had nothing to do with it. 778186[/snapback] Okay, I was going by what Mark Kelso said after the play on the radio broadcast. That as long as the pass was behind the line of scrimmage there could be no pass interference. I figured he knew what he was talking about. I did notice that they called that same play a little later in the game to Peerless,I believe, and they did get some positive yardage and no flag.
Simon Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 The guy got run out of Schittsburgh. He got run out of Buffalo.If the "offense" keeps up like this in MyHammy, he'll be run out there, too. Uhhh no. He got promoted out of Pittsburgh after running a Top5 NFL offense for two years (amazing what a difference a comptent OLine can make, eh?). Then he quit the Buffalo job because Ralph Wilson spent all of '05 interfering with his decisions. And the only person who should be run out of miamuh is the clown that thought LJSHelton, BennieAnderson and JenoJames are NFL starters. if they didn't whistle it, the ball would have been picked-up by one of the Bills most likely. But they did whistle it and it was just another example of a crew seemingly calling a one-sided game, regardless of any other possibilities. And I saw some bad calls that went against the Bills. I named two. Can you name more cuz I didn't see any more when I was watching tape. But this was NOTHING like last weekend. On that we can agree. Is a WR screen considered a "gimmick" play? No. But around here anything that isn't the halfback following the fullback over one of the guard holes is considered a wildly unconventional trick play.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Uhhh no. He got promoted out of Pittsburgh after running a Top5 NFL offense for two years 778207[/snapback] LMAO....he got "promoted" and instantaneously, the Schittsburgh offense got better. Tom Donohoe, among other things, was a HORRIBLE judge of coaching talent.
Simon Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched. 778192[/snapback] But if Reed establishes postion for a full second and a defender runs into him should it be considered a "block". He's under no obligation to jump out of the way and give up the position he's established.
5 Wide Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Uhhh no. He got promoted out of Pittsburgh after running a Top5 NFL offense for two years (amazing what a difference a comptent OLine can make, eh?). Then he quit the Buffalo job because Ralph Wilson spent all of '05 interfering with his decisions.And the only person who should be run out of miamuh is the clown that thought LJSHelton, BennieAnderson and JenoJames are NFL starters. Whatever anyone thinks about Mularkey's gadgetry and what not, there is no denying that the guy has no feel for the game. That was on display for 2 years in Buffalo and evident as well yesterday. Ronnie Brown was ripping off 4-6 yards on every carry but Mularkey went to the pass almost the entire 2nd half. His ability to make adjustments on the fly based on what is happening on the field is non-existent. He is a poor game manager, and consistently does not put his personnel in position to play to their strengths.
5 Wide Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 But if Reed establishes postion for a full second and a defender runs into him should it be considered a "block". He's under no obligation to jump out of the way and give up the position he's established. 778210[/snapback] When Reed engages the defender with his hands it is no longer an established positional pick.
Simon Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 LMAO....he got "promoted" and instantaneously, the Schittsburgh offense got better. 778209[/snapback] Is that right? He coached the Stiller offense to two Top5 finishes while he was there. Since he left, the Stiller offense has finished no higher than 16th in the league. Yeah, instantaneously better. Tom Donohoe, among other things, was a HORRIBLE judge of coaching talent. Well, he's had one very succesful hire in Cowher. One unsuccesful hire in GWilliams. And the jury is still wayyyyyy out on Mularkey. Should we also add Bobby April, Dick Lebeau, Mouse McNally into the equation? Yeah, that's pretty HORRIBLE.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Is that right?He coached the Stiller offense to two Top5 finishes while he was there. Since he left, the Stiller offense has finished no higher than 16th in the league. Yeah, instantaneously better. Well, he's had one very succesful hire in Cowher. One unsuccesful hire in GWilliams. And the jury is still wayyyyyy out on Mularkey. Should we also add Bobby April, Dick Lebeau, Mouse McNally into the equation? Yeah, that's pretty HORRIBLE. 778219[/snapback] You are the only person alive on this planet or any other that thinks the jury is WAAAAAAY out on Mularkey. I don't know what this obsession is, but you'd better seek help. It sounds like serious delusion.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 I named two. Can you name more cuz I didn't see any more when I was watching tape. I'd add the block in the back on Welker's long return, that would have backed the Dolphins inside their own 5. I also swear I saw a facemask or two, but I haven't gone back over the whole game. Again, nothing earth-shattering that was missed in favor of the Bills and certainly nothing like what happened last weekend, i.e. with IMHO the refs deciding the game.
Nervous Guy Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 But if Reed establishes postion for a full second and a defender runs into him should it be considered a "block". He's under no obligation to jump out of the way and give up the position he's established. 778210[/snapback] then it would be defensive PI...but Reed's hand were up in a blocking position...check the tape.
kegtapr Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 I'm not defending Mularkey, I'm defending reality. 778166[/snapback] Reality would like new counsel.
East Brady Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Is that right?He coached the Stiller offense to two Top5 finishes while he was there. Since he left, the Stiller offense has finished no higher than 16th in the league. Yeah, instantaneously better. Well, he's had one very succesful hire in Cowher. One unsuccesful hire in GWilliams. And the jury is still wayyyyyy out on Mularkey. Should we also add Bobby April, Dick Lebeau, Mouse McNally into the equation? Yeah, that's pretty HORRIBLE. 778219[/snapback] Thats all pretty funny simon because the way I remember it, down here in stiller land, mikey was going to be replaced and that talk quited down as his name came up for various HC jobs ... As far as the stats go since he left the burgh and with a young qb they are 1-1 in AFC champ. games and 1-0 in the superbowl ..wish we could say that ......f the stats....... Further more; are you really sure TD hired cowher or was that another Rooney deal, that they allowed him to pin that feather in his cap ????...me thinks it was the latter!!! Prediction: Donahoe will never be hired for another GM job in the NFL.....we'll see him working alongside the likes of Pat Kirwin before long.......
Ramius Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Is that right?He coached the Stiller offense to two Top5 finishes while he was there. Since he left, the Stiller offense has finished no higher than 16th in the league. Yeah, instantaneously better. Well, he's had one very succesful hire in Cowher. One unsuccesful hire in GWilliams. And the jury is still wayyyyyy out on Mularkey. Should we also add Bobby April, Dick Lebeau, Mouse McNally into the equation? Yeah, that's pretty HORRIBLE. 778219[/snapback] Lets just ignore the little fact that Cowher was going to fire Mularkey and promote Whisenhunt until TD made the job easy for Cowher. Mularkey is sh--, plain and simple.
Recommended Posts