Jump to content

BarleyNY

Community Member
  • Posts

    11,593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BarleyNY

  1. Oh man. I didnt go either because I wussed out thinking it was going to pour all day. I hate myself.

    I dont like how they are treating Kizer because hes the youngest starter in the league. They knew he was raw. Hue decided not to hire an OC. They have no vet QB there for him to learn from not an OC nor any decent weapons. It was a terrible place for a rookie Qb to land imo. They could have at least kept Barnidge. Their most vet pass catcher is that steaming pile Kenny Britt. Kizer may not be any good but evaluating him this way is just futile. Then there is the yo-yoing him in and out of the lineup. Come on, Browns.

    Yup. Lots of mistakes to go around with the Browns. McCarron was definitely to appease Hue. They missed on several QBs. Hue wanted Goff, but not Wentz. Trubisky was of interest to the Browns as was Mahomes, but Hue didn’t want Watson. Kizer was a crapshoot. I see some changes coming with all of the infighting.

  2. Oh man. I didnt go either because I wussed out thinking it was going to pour all day. I hate myself.

    Yup. Big drive from B-Lo to C-bus, the MIL was coming to town and my wife wanted to spend some time with her and I thought we’d lose the game. Plus it was through a person she does business with so she’d have to go. I passed so she could spend time with her mom. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. When will I learn that being nice gets me nowhere?

  3. Daryl Ruiter ✔ @RuiterWrongFAN

    Per league source #Browns #Bengals agreed on a deal for McCarron but the paperwork was not properly executed in time to beat 4pm deadline.

    Daryl Ruiter ✔ @RuiterWrongFAN

    #Browns sent their signed trade agreement to #Bengals to be signed & sent to NFL but #Bengals sent a copy w/out Browns signature per source

    7:07 PM - Oct 31, 2017

    18 18 Replies 36 36 Retweets 26 26 likes

     

    Looks like the paperwork isn’t on the Browns, but they’re still on the hook for wanting to give up prime picks for AJ McCarron. Not sure how that’s excusable.

  4. Wow. Out of nowhere.

    They must really think Brady can last another few years, or they don't think Garropolo is as good as everyone thinks he is.

    This is a very odd move. Unless SF worked out a long term deal with JG, then they just paid a very high second round pick for a QB who will be on their roster for half of a regular season. I’m not sure how a QB even learns an offense and gets comfortable with teammates in 9 weeks. JG gets the ball out fast. He’s got potential, but the Belichick driven hype machine has been in motion for two seasons on JG. I can’t believe they’d be looking to move him if he was that good.

  5. I read this and thought it had to be a joke. I don't care about his attitude and contract. He is a Pro Bowl DT and one of the better ones at his position. We should have gotten a player and a 3rd which could escalate to a 2nd or 1st based on performance. BAD BAD TRADE!

    You must’ve missed the part where - after getting a primo contract with a bunch of guaranteed money - stopped caring, working out and trying at football while taking time to smoke a lot of dope. His next suspension is 10 games and the one after that is a minimum of one season. What is paid for something has no bearing on that thing’s worth. I’m just happy to have cut our losses.

  6. This regime did what they had to do to get out from under the garbage contract Whaley gave Dareus. It was nice work by Beane to manage to do that. It couldn’t have been easy.

     

    Anyone who says it would’ve been better to just cut him doesn’t understand the reality of his contract. That would’ve been unworkable until after next season. A trade was the only option to get rid of him - and that meant finding a team foolish enough to take on his contract.

  7. The rules state that in the event of a lateral, even if the ball hits the ground, any player (offensive and defensive) can advance the ball. I think it's more considered a live ball then a fumble (like a ball that hasn't been touched on a kickoff).

     

    Thats true except in the last 2 minutes of the game. The NFL counted the laterals that hit the ground as fumbles, so theyre fumbles. Any fumble in the last two minutes of a half cant be advanced by any offensive player except the one who fumbled. So the play should have been blown dead after the first recovery per rule.

     

    I dont think anyone would argue that a QB pitching the ball to a RB and having it hit the ground is a fumble. Ditto that any lateral that would hit the ground on any given play is a fumble. If the NFL wanted to call it something else, then the refs would have to use their judgement to determine intent during the play. Thats not always as easy as in this one and would impact the end of the 1st half as well. One minute left in the first half and as the RB gets tackled the ball comes out, rolls backwards and another offensive player picks it up and runs it in for a TD. By rule now that ball is dead at the recovery spot regardless of why it came out. I wouldnt want the refs to have to determine if it was a fumble (spot of recovery) or lateral attempt (touchdown). The game doesnt need that.

  8. On Monday morning, one of the talk radio shows was talking about the impact of the multiple fumbles on that play. They indicated the Bucs were recorded as having 4, I think on that play.

    Excellent points by you and Bison. Since the NFL considers the laterals that hit the ground fumbles, then the refs should have blown the play dead after the first recovery. I’ve seen it happen before on this kind of play so it wasn’t just this game or this set of refs. The NFL needs to correct it. There’s no reason to allow a play like this to continue since the injury risk is high (coughPoyercough) and blowing the play dead after the ball hits the ground and is first recovered is the right way to do that. They don’t even have to change any rules, they just have to properly enforce the ones they have.

×
×
  • Create New...