Jump to content

ImpactCorey

Community Member
  • Posts

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ImpactCorey

  1. On 1/29/2024 at 9:05 PM, Green Lightning said:

    Planning not to. Enough of Mahomes fat helmet and FN Swift. Dislike both teams and underwhelmed with Usher. I'll score some major points with the wife who doesn't understand why anyone would love something that so upsets you.  She has a point.

     

    I hope the surprise guest is the Style Boyz and they do The Donkey Roll together.

  2. 41 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

    I'm 60+ and had never heard of this song til right now. Just went to YT to check it out, and it's pretty much garbage, IMO.

     

    They play THAT song at every Bills game?! Yeah, I'd question it too.

     

    I call shenanigans.  Nobody over 60 shorthands youtube to YT.  Nice try kid.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Haha (+1) 5
    • Awesome! (+1) 1
  3. 11 minutes ago, bobobonators said:


    How is it wild? It has to do with the game day experience. The song is not a classic and has no bearing to anything Buffalo, so why continue playing it every home game? Is the song deserving of being a Bills tradition on gameday? It’s a valid question in my opinion. 

     

    I'm not here to argue for or against this song at game day.  Nor will I say I even like it.  However, this particular song has shown up on top 50 rock songs of ALL time as recently as 2021.  It is played all over the WORLD at sporting events.  I don't know if that makes it "classic" but it certainly isn't a flash in the pan.

    • Like (+1) 2
    • Agree 3
  4. 45 minutes ago, Prospector said:

    kinda gets negated by an extra game played in the AFCCG... plus, how many playoff games has Mahomes played at home? 

     

    You're right.  I was thinking that game was generally played in February but it squeaks in at the end of January.  So I counted and it appears Allen and Mahomes played the same number of games in Dec/Jan in this span.  My mistake.   It is an impressive stat.

    • Like (+1) 1
  5. @shaw66 convinced me the rule makes sense with this comment:

     

    Quote

    So a receiver can be standing out of bounds and tip the ball to a teammate inbounds, and that's a catch?  That COULD be the rule, but it violates the basic idea that the game is played inside the lines, not outside.  

     

    Otherwise you get into weird territory of "well where was the ball relative to where the out of bounds player was" stuff and so on and so on.  The NFL needs more objective calls and less subjective calls.  Everyone remembers the pushing receivers out of bounds days right?

     

  6. Just now, Starr Almighty said:

    The real question is turnovers are always automatically reviewed. Why was McDermott forced to challenge not once  but twice

    It has to actually be a turnover.  The call on the field was that it was NOT a turnover.

  7. 5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

    So a receiver can be standing out of bounds and tip the ball to a teammate inbounds, and that's a catch?  That COULD be the rule, but it violates the basic idea that the game is played inside the lines, not outside.  

     

    This is a great point and makes a good argument for the current rule.

  8. 8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

    So if a receiver is standing out of bounds and catches the ball while the ball is still inside the line, its a completion?

     

    When any part of a player is out of bounds, his whole body is out of bounds.  When the ball touches any part of the body of a player who is out of bounds, the ball is out of bounds.

    Notice the part where i said possession.  A receiver has to have possession and be in bounds for a catch.   I think the same should apply to a ball on the ground in play.  If you want that to count as out of bounds, you should have possession.  Its actually the same in both cases.  Your attempt at getting me actually proved my point.

     

    A more appropriate comparison would be calling it a catch if a pass bounces off a players helmet.

    • Agree 1
  9. 2 hours ago, Codyny13 said:

    Sirius NFL radio this morning said that refs or NY has different angles that we don’t get to see…my question is why don’t we get to see them, if in fact a particular angle shows definitive proof that the ball did in fact hit Freiermuth? The NFL needs to be more transparent, and at the very least we deserve an explanation in real time.

     

    The call on the field was not a fumble recovery.  So in order to get it overturned, there would have to be definitive proof that it did NOT hit his helmet.  Not the other way around.  It was too close to say that IMO.  However, I think the premise of the rule is pretty dumb.  I don't think the ball should be considered out of bounds unless someone with possession is touching the ball.  Otherwise, the ball itself should have to be out of bounds (like when a player slaps it out).   It tapping someone's helmet who is sprawled out of bounds is pretty silly. 

     

    • Like (+1) 2
    • Disagree 1
×
×
  • Create New...