ajzepp Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Any doubt that Larry Fitzgerald isn't the best WR in the league? Best WR? What about best player? The guy is lighting it up this post season. And I'm not sure I understand why everyone has been so unbelieving of the Cardinals success...last I checked, their QB was a former league MVP and Superbowl champion. That alone goes a long way toward making you viable. I can't believe they're beating up on Philly this badly.
davefan66 Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 They're hitting him at every opportunity exactly like they've been coached to do, as Warner hates being touched. I thought the first one was a garbage call. The second one was way after the play and total garbage and cheap.
Erik Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Best WR? What about best player? The guy is lighting it up this post season. And I'm not sure I understand why everyone has been so unbelieving of the Cardinals success...last I checked, their QB was a former league MVP and Superbowl champion. That alone goes a long way toward making you viable. I can't believe they're beating up on Philly this badly. They have a great coaching staff as well...I find it funny that's it so underrated but is heavily filled with Bill Cowher's former staff.
ajzepp Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 They have a great coaching staff as well...I find it funny that's it so underrated but is heavily filled with Bill Cowher's former staff. Great point. Wasn't Whisenhut the guy Mularkey wanted to bring with him to the Bills for the OC position instead of what's his name?
/dev/null Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 last I checked, their QB was a former league MVP and Superbowl champion. Yeah but Warner wears gloves...indoors
Simon Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 The second one was way after the play and total garbage and cheap. I didn't see that one. Not surprising though from a team that is absolutely desperate to get some knocks on Warner.
Dan Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 I thought it definitely touched the Eagles coverage guy after it bounced and while his foot was OB. That's what made it a dead ball.I was actually glad to see the Eagles get a bit of a lucky bounce as the Cards have been getting a lot of home cookin' from this officiating crew. No way it touched the Eagle guy - at least from the replay I saw. In the least, they shouldl be able to review the play. No, it's actually not more important because it doesn't need to happen. Whether the ball touches out of bounds or not is irrelevant. If the ball hits a player who is out of bounds then the ball is dead no matter where it is. It looked to me like the ball hit the Eagles player, apparently it looked to you like it didn't. Sounds like it's pretty indisputable then...not sure what the issue is with the call. Good point. But, when they showed the reverse angle (granted they only showed it once) it didn't look to hit the Eagle player. At least, I should say, I couldn't see the ball change direction in any way. Either way, I guess it all evened out - which is the excuse the league always uses to keep making bad calls. The Eagles punted and the Cards get a last second field goal. So, in the grand scheme of the game it'll probably mean little.
Simon Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 No way it touched the Eagle guy - at least from the replay I saw. In the least, they shouldl be able to review the play. Agreed that there is no reason on planet Earth that that (or any other call dealing with the ball being called OB) shouldn't be able to be reviewed. But I felt like I was 100% sure I saw it alter its course after it bounced up and grazed the Philly coverage man. The stupid thing was when they kept showing the replay, every time (except the first time) they would stop the film right at the point it contacted the Eagle, hold it for a couple seconds, and then move it forward again. Which accomplished nothing but taking away the motion and points of reference that enabled us to see the ball changing direction. But if you watch the first replay uninterrupted I think you'd be able to see it wobble.
RLflutie7 Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 No way it touched the Eagle guy - at least from the replay I saw. In the least, they shouldl be able to review the play. Good point. But, when they showed the reverse angle (granted they only showed it once) it didn't look to hit the Eagle player. At least, I should say, I couldn't see the ball change direction in any way. Either way, I guess it all evened out - which is the excuse the league always uses to keep making bad calls. The Eagles punted and the Cards get a last second field goal. So, in the grand scheme of the game it'll probably mean little. Doesn't a player have to have possession of the ball. He can't just touch the ball and then go out. It's a live ball if he does, isn't it?
Dan Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Agreed that there is no reason on planet Earth that that (or any other call dealing with the ball being called OB) shouldn't be able to be reviewed.But I felt like I was 100% sure I saw it alter its course after it bounced up and grazed the Philly coverage man. The stupid thing was when they kept showing the replay, every time (except the first time) they would stop the film right at the point it contacted the Eagle, hold it for a couple seconds, and then move it forward again. Which accomplished nothing but taking away the motion and points of reference that enabled us to see the ball changing direction. But if you watch the first replay uninterrupted I think you'd be able to see it wobble. It's almost like the networks don't want us to be able to look at the play objectively. You may be right, it could have touched him. And had it been reviewed, I could live with that assessment. But to not even be able to look at it is just dumb. For the life of me, I'll never understand why the NFL makes the use of replay review so cumbersome and difficult.
Dan Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Doesn't a player have to have possession of the ball. He can't just touch the ball and then go out. It's a live ball if he does, isn't it? No, I'm pretty sure Erik is right. If a loose ball simple touches a player that's out of bounds, then the ball is considered out of bounds at that moment.
Simon Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 For the life of me, I'll never understand why the NFL makes the use of replay review so cumbersome and difficult. It's making me completely insane. As bad as the inconsistent rules for it are what drives me crazy is how much time they waste with it when it could be done in under 30 seconds from the time coach throws his flag. Instead we've got to have some guy walking around talking to everybody and only then walking all the way over behind the sidleines before the review even starts. Talk about momentum killers!
Erik Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 No, I'm pretty sure Erik is right. If a loose ball simple touches a player that's out of bounds, then the ball is considered out of bounds at that moment. Yup, that was the old "David Patten, knocked out cold on the sidelines yet still recovers a fumble because his lifeless body was half out of bounds and touching the ball" rule. I'm pretty srue I know all of the obscure rules since it seems that at one point or another, the Bills were screwed by them.
Dan Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 It's making me completely insane. As bad as the inconsistent rules for it are what drives me crazy is how much time they waste with it when it could be done in under 30 seconds from the time coach throws his flag. Instead we've got to have some guy walking around talking to everybody and only then walking all the way over behind the sidleines before the review even starts. Talk about momentum killers! I've said the same thing for years. Why would it be so hard to have a ref sitting upstairs in the booth looking at multiple monitors? He looks at the play and calls it down to the Ref on the field. Simple. No walking around. No talking to each other to find out what each saw. No waiting for the replay to que up. It's absurd what they do.
marauderswr80 Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 watching them makes me hate Ralph Wilson even more. That franchise went from the dumps to being a good team. They have people within the organization who are willing to do what it takes to win football games. Buffalo is far from being a good team or even a good organization at that.....
kegtapr Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 So does the world end when the clock strikes 00:00? Or is that if they only win the SB?
May Day 10 Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 No, I'm pretty sure Erik is right. If a loose ball simple touches a player that's out of bounds, then the ball is considered out of bounds at that moment. The player wasnt close to being out of bounds when he supposedly touched the ball anyways. Totally blown call.
BuffaloWings Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Where did this Cardinals' defense come from?? I admit I didn't see most of last week's game against Carolina, but sheesh. This game is over...Baskett just dropped an easy one that would've gone for a first down, at least. The Gods are not smiling on Philly today. As I type that, Curtis catches a deep one.
Erik Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 The player wasnt close to being out of bounds when he supposedly touched the ball anyways. Totally blown call. His foot was clearly out of bounds when the ball kicked back and and may or may not have hit him...not sure which play you were watching.
Recommended Posts