BRH

So, not to bump this up or anything, but this was TMQ's take:

I believe he's on the Wall. He needs to be in Canton too.

Might it also be possible that because he is so "good," the refs tend to focus on other parts of the play, knowing that the likelihood of the ball coming Revis' way is slim? Hence he would be able to do a lot more extracurricular stuff because the ref wouldn't be looking as often as he would if it were, say, McKelvin.

I have to ask: is it not possible that Webster also had to slow down and come back to the ball and, having the inside, was in perfect position for the INT both times? Stevie is a good receiver, yes, but you rarely see him "5 or 6 yards past" any cornerback.

And 25-yard passes.

Actually Losman wouldn't have finished the game because Wilfork would have blown out his knee with a dirty hit. "so lol"

Different situation. They weren't in scoring range and were already ahead.

He did have one play that looked like a designed pass, but the receiver was covered today.

He may have just found a way.

Sure it is. If you think Fitz can make that throw and that the first one was an aberration. Fitz lacked zip on a lot of his passes today, not just those two. Yes, he had a few nice bullets, but overall he had a poor throwing day. Just playing the odds, I thought it was a bad call today. Maybe in another day his arm looks better and you make that call with confidence.

Man I'm just hoping Romo doesn't find a way to f this up.

Point is, he already hadn't. It's like a catcher calling for a fastball in a critical spot when he knows the pitcher's gassed. You need to know what your guy can do AT THAT TIME and call your game around it.

Fitz had already underthrown the same ball earlier, resulting in an INT. If this was Chan's call, I blame him. Players are supposed to execute, yes, but coaches are supposed to put players in positions to succeed. That call did not play to Fitz's strength.

This. Twice.

Okay from now on maybe we should just have four or five threads on the main board. Sorry you were inconvenienced.

I'll go even farther back and recall the end-around we ran with Andre Reed while absolutely gashing the Broncos en route to what would almost certainly have been a game-winning FG in 1997. Fina missed his man and Alfred Williams took Reed down out of FG range, killing the momentum and basically losing the game. This was like that. It was no time to get cute. And comparing it to the Freddy play against NE is just stupid. We weren't in FG range then.

And Fred could have been just blowing smoke. Not saying he was or wasn't, but I'm not sure why he would tell everyone what we would have done when we didn't have to do it. My favorite poker players are the ones who tell me what they had after the hand is over.

Or Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure... "Look, it's the Goodyear Blimp!" "I can't believe they fell for it, dude!"

I believe this team is way better than that Jauron-Edwards 4-1 squad. Most rational observers think so, too. But 4-1 is where the wheels fell off in '07, and I think it's a psychological barrier for a lot of folks. My father's grandfather died of a heart attack when he was 47 and I know that weighed on my dad's mind the whole time leading up to when he turned 48. (He's almost 70 now.) Same with my wife, who lost her mom when her mom was 37...the year my wife was 37 was very tough on her. I know this is just football, but it's a similar psychology. If we can beat the Giants to go 5-1, then I think some of these negative nancies will shut up. It won't ever completely go away, though, until we win the last game of the season. THAT is another psychological hurdle for another day. Those early '90s teams under Walt Corey were the definition of "bend, don't break." They gave up yards and drives, but they made big plays when they needed to. This team is learning how to do that.

You know if it was New England* they would have put the time back on.

Bingo. As I remember it, he actually campaigned for the job.

HAHAHAHAAAA

Must. Get. First. Down.

See Florence tip the ball up to Barnett! What a play!

No ****