stevestojan Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 This post is retarded. We saved the TO for a FG attempt. Are you fu-king serious? What would you have said if we burned it, and then bledsoe threw a 40 yard pass, leaving lindell a chip shot... tick tick tick... GAME OVER. Saving that TO was about the only smart thing we did all day.
cåblelady Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 This post is retarded. We saved the TO for a FG attempt. Are you fu-king serious? What would you have said if we burned it, and then bledsoe threw a 40 yard pass, leaving lindell a chip shot... tick tick tick... GAME OVER. Saving that TO was about the only smart thing we did all day. 64249[/snapback] Mmmm-kay.
IBTG81 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 This post is retarded. We saved the TO for a FG attempt. Are you fu-king serious? What would you have said if we burned it, and then bledsoe threw a 40 yard pass, leaving lindell a chip shot... tick tick tick... GAME OVER. Saving that TO was about the only smart thing we did all day. 64249[/snapback] I agree with stojan... MDH... "Umm, because if we had "needed" the TO to stop the clock when we were in FG range and had already used it after the sack it would have been obvious to us that they never would have gotten into FG range had they not called the TO after the sack... " Whatever dude.
MDH Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 This post is retarded. We saved the TO for a FG attempt. Are you fu-king serious? What would you have said if we burned it, and then bledsoe threw a 40 yard pass, leaving lindell a chip shot... tick tick tick... GAME OVER. Saving that TO was about the only smart thing we did all day. 64249[/snapback] Let me explain this really slowly for you. Say we take a TO after the sack and save the 25 seconds that burned off the clock. Then let's say that, with 8 seconds left Drew hits Moulds over the middle of the field and we have no time outs to stop the clock...tick, tick, tick...we lose. Now, Let's do some math. If we saved 25 seconds by calling a TO after the sack...and there were only 8 seconds on the clock when Moulds caught the ball would that play have even HAPPENED if the TO hadn't been taken after the sack? (hint: this isn't a trick question, or a particularly hard one). The only way your arguement makes sense is if there are more than 25 seconds left on the clock after Moulds makes that catch and for some insane reason we can't get downfield to spike the ball in that time. You have the weigh the difference...does it take more time for the offense to get down field to spike the ball at the end of the game (when they all know before the snap that they have to do so) or does it take them longer to get back to the LOS after a sack (when nobody realizes for a few seconds what happened and the WRs are all downfield), get a play called, and snap the ball?
MDH Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 MDH... "Umm, because if we had "needed" the TO to stop the clock when we were in FG range and had already used it after the sack it would have been obvious to us that they never would have gotten into FG range had they not called the TO after the sack... " Whatever dude. 64269[/snapback] I'm sorry logical thinking isn't your thing.
cåblelady Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 You have the weigh the difference...does it take more time for the offense to get down field to spike the ball at the end of the game (when they all know before the snap that they have to do so) or does it take them longer to get back to the LOS after a sack (when nobody realizes for a few seconds what happened and the WRs are all downfield), get a play called, and snap the ball? 64278[/snapback] Don't forget that Ed and Steve are youngins'. They learned new Math....with a calculator.
IBTG81 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Don't forget that Ed and Steve are youngins'. They learned new Math....with a calculator. 64289[/snapback] Out with the old, in with the new... Some people just like to B word no matter what.
IBTG81 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 I'm sorry logical thinking isn't your thing. 64283[/snapback] That sentence, if I could even call it one, does not make sense.
cåblelady Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Out with the old, in with the new... Some people just like to B word no matter what. 64292[/snapback] You know I love you, sweetie.
IBTG81 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 You know I love you, sweetie. 64295[/snapback] As I love you too!
MDH Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 That sentence, if I could even call it one, does not make sense. 64294[/snapback] It makes more sense than your clock management skills.
IBTG81 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 It makes more sense than your clock management skills. 64298[/snapback] Ohhhhhhhhhh, I know you are but what am I?
cåblelady Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Ohhhhhhhhhh, I know you are but what am I? 64303[/snapback] *LOL* Sorry. I love that Pee Wee Herman line.
MDH Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Ohhhhhhhhhh, I know you are but what am I? 64303[/snapback] Taking the discussion way off topic is a classic "I got owned and have to divert attention" move. You've played the move nicely, congrats (or should I type out "congratulations" for fear of reprimand?)
IBTG81 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Taking the discussion way off topic is a classic "I got owned and have to divert attention" move. You've played the move nicely, congrats (or should I type out "congratulations" for fear of reprimand?) 64322[/snapback] Your sentence made no sense, and it ran on also. I'm sorry that you're an idiot.
Pete Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 You have to take a timeout after the sack. If he didnt get sacked it makes sense to save the timeout but it was stupid not to use the timeout and let 30 seconds burn off the clock
Captain America Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 They let waaay to much time elapse of the clock. 64147[/snapback] Yea , about sixty minutes of playing time
MDH Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 Your sentence made no sense, and it ran on also. I'm sorry that you're an idiot. 64380[/snapback] You can't do 3rd grade math and you have the nerve to call somebody else an idiot?
IBTG81 Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 You can't do 3rd grade math and you have the nerve to call somebody else an idiot? 64407[/snapback] 3rd grade math? What the hell are you talking about? Like I said, they were saving the timeout in case they got in field goal range. Obviously, Mularkey thought so too. I'll go with him over you.
stevestojan Posted October 11, 2004 Posted October 11, 2004 if you cannot realize that we saved that timeout to get lindell and crew out on the field, then you are simple retarded. Really. Again, not using that TO was the only smart move by the Bills today. Down by two, very little time, needing a FG, you SAVE the TO in case you get close. You dont HOPE that you can get to the line after a big gain and spike the ball. Seriously, what the !@#$ are you talking about. THE TO WAS SAVED IN CASE WE NEEDED TO GET THE FG UNIT OUT THERE.
Recommended Posts