Jump to content

Shooting Mammals in a Barrel: 12/23/2012, BILLS @ Fish GAME THREAD


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 531
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

But Moore turned the play in and there were no linebackers anywhere. Dareus wasn't really the problem on that one. Nor was Kyle Williams even though he was moved.

Far be it from me to defend our linebackers, but when Dareus is driven backwards into them it makes their job impossible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone keeping track?

 

1) SJ "fumble" - questionable possession

2) SJ "incomplete" - clearly a catch and breaking of the plane

3) Tannehill "fumble" - not even reviewed

4) Dickerson fumble - no possession

5) Tannehill "lateral" - it's a forward pass that went backwards! WTF.

 

Ok, try and tell me that it isn't against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. Since it was an intent to throw a forward pass even though it didn't go forward? Soooooo all any QB that has the ball slip out of his hand can say it was his intent to throw it forward?

 

Yes just like any QB can tuck the ball to their chest when they see a defender coming just to save a fumble to be call incomplete because of the tuck rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone keeping track?

 

1) SJ "fumble" - questionable possession

2) SJ "incomplete" - clearly a catch and breaking of the plane

3) Tannehill "fumble" - not even reviewed

4) Dickerson fumble - no possession

5) Tannehill "lateral" - it's a forward pass that went backwards! WTF.

 

Ok, try and tell me that it isn't against us.

 

This is one of the worst games I have seen call wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone keeping track?

 

1) SJ "fumble" - questionable possession

2) SJ "incomplete" - clearly a catch and breaking of the plane

3) Tannehill "fumble" - not even reviewed

4) Dickerson fumble - no possession

5) Tannehill "lateral" - it's a forward pass that went backwards! WTF.

 

Ok, try and tell me that it isn't against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone keeping track?

 

1) SJ "fumble" - questionable possession

2) SJ "incomplete" - clearly a catch and breaking of the plane

3) Tannehill "fumble" - not even reviewed

4) Dickerson fumble - no possession

5) Tannehill "lateral" - it's a forward pass that went backwards! WTF.

 

Ok, try and tell me that it isn't against us.

 

That is reaching it never went backwards it never went forward either but it was by rule incomplete it should of been intentional grounding tho, and I don't blame them for the stevie fumble in the endzone the coach has to challenge that ****. Stevie did fumble the ball on the first one though and not even debatable if ruled a fumble.

Edited by TheOldBill12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...