Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Can someone tell me who keeps playing in a Browns uniform during the 3rd quarter of the past 4 games they've played? I'm not sure who the feth they are, and if I'll get the team that can somehow come from behind and close out a victory, or will lose it in a final seconds field goal...
Also the "Start Manziel" folks are starting to sound fething lunatics... Here's the "top dawg" in that camp:
*slinks back into the shadows, lest the Browns start to suck again*
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/06 23:18:03
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
TheMeanDM wrote: 10 accepted penalties vs. Seattle?! Through 2 1/2 quarters?!?
Dudes.....get your gak together....there is no reason that the Skins should be within a score....no reason at all.
I don't know about that... The Skins defense seems like it has adjusted relatively well after being embarrassed early on.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ugh... if I had followed the stats, and put the Eagles D in the starting role, I would have won by one point... instead, I lost by 20
dogma wrote: The lack of a holding call on Okung against Orakpo is one of the most disgusting things I have seen in my 14 years of watching NFL football.
I've noticed that too.
The need to fething simplify the rules and let these guys play.
dogma wrote: The lack of a holding call on Okung against Orakpo is one of the most disgusting things I have seen in my 14 years of watching NFL football.
I've noticed that too.
The need to fething simplify the rules and let these guys play.
Forget that call.
How about the ridiculous number of defensive holding calls in general?
Or the "blind side blocks" that are, basically, making it so players can't actually block on a turnover....
Not really rules related... but one thing I'm getting VERY tired of, is commentators gratuitous use of the word "rugby" or other rugby related terms, like scrum.
If you're going to use terms from another sport, please at least educate yourself enough to know what you're actually saying.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not really rules related... but one thing I'm getting VERY tired of, is commentators gratuitous use of the word "rugby" or other rugby related terms, like scrum.
If you're going to use terms from another sport, please at least educate yourself enough to know what you're actually saying.
You know I agree with that.
When some random commentator said scrum in regards to a big disorganized mess of a scuffle going on, my wife, of all people, goes, "But I thought in the scrum it had to be really organized or people could get hurt."
Couldn't have been more proud of her at that moment than I was unless she'd been grilling a steak while wearing an American flag.
dogma wrote: The lack of a holding call on Okung against Orakpo is one of the most disgusting things I have seen in my 14 years of watching NFL football.
I've noticed that too.
The need to fething simplify the rules and let these guys play.
Steelers got jobbed last week on a blatent hold right in front of the official. Then got flagged for arguing with the ref about it. *shrug*
Said it before and I'm saying it again...the officials have far too much on their plates. They're now at least as focused on playing safety patrol as they are on officiating the basic rules of the game. It's too much and they're overwhelmed.
If I was an NFL coach, I'd be coaching my players to "dive" like crazy. You never really know what you're going to get anymore with the officiating, so you might as well try to draw some penalties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not really rules related... but one thing I'm getting VERY tired of, is commentators gratuitous use of the word "rugby" or other rugby related terms, like scrum.
If you're going to use terms from another sport, please at least educate yourself enough to know what you're actually saying.
Eh. Only rugby fans really care, and they're probably outnumbered 250 to 1 in the U.S.
One of my announcer beefs that no one else cares about is how a ball is said to be "almost intercepted" on a simple defensed pass, or when a DB is even in the vicinity of a bad throw. Classic example of inventing some extra drama and not calling the action as you really see it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/07 19:43:21
The need to fething simplify the rules and let these guys play.
The rules aren't that complicated. The players know them, the coaches know them, and the officials know them. The problem is that the officials aren't doing their job. Granted their job is difficult as they have to contend with issues of league and franchise profits, which are both largely driven by fanbases that want to see a certain sort of game.
It was holding immediately after the snap, and also holding when Okung draped his arm over Orakpo's shoulder in order to prevent him from disrupting Russel. A disgusting no-call on a key play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/07 20:30:19
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Not really rules related... but one thing I'm getting VERY tired of, is commentators gratuitous use of the word "rugby" or other rugby related terms, like scrum.
If you're going to use terms from another sport, please at least educate yourself enough to know what you're actually saying.
Eh. Only rugby fans really care, and they're probably outnumbered 250 to 1 in the U.S.
One of my announcer beefs that no one else cares about is how a ball is said to be "almost intercepted" on a simple defensed pass, or when a DB is even in the vicinity of a bad throw. Classic example of inventing some extra drama and not calling the action as you really see it.
To be fair... I actually hate the misuse of ALL terms from other sports.... "Marshawn Lynch just hit a homerun with that TD run" ... Wait what!? "I really like that coach's call, having the TE run that quick slant route was a real slam dunk"
and gak like that... In regards to your "not calling how it's seen" thing, I agree with you, but I also hate when a DB tips a pass, or hits the ball with both hands (basically dropping a sure interception) and the commentator says "well, you know that's why he's a defensive back and not a wide receiver"
Ohh, speaking of shoddy officiating how about this one:
In the second half (IIRC) when Wilson went scrambling about, his feet crossed the line of scrimmage, he went back and threw a completed pass. Now, apparently, under the rules, should he cross the LoS (completely) then it's a penalty.
IF crossing the line of scrimmage, going back and THEN throwing the ball is a penalty, why was Washington allowed to challenge the play? If Washington can challenge a play for a penalty, why can't Seattle, or by extension any other team, use a challenge on a critical play for a Pass Interference? It's been fairly clear since day one of Coaches' Challenges that you cannot challenge a penalty...... and yet it happened last night
)
