stupid plays

phat cat · Post by **phat cat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:31 am

I once was a Redskin fan and I still kinda watch you guys. Your team has heart but lacks adequate leadership. How could a coach in the NFL with 1:43 seconds left in the game, close to field goal position for overtime allow his QB to throw the ball so far down the field for a stupid play and interception? Your coach needs to Re-retire, he has lost that magic touch.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:38 am

phat cat wrote:I once was a Redskin fan and I still kinda watch you guys. Your team has heart but lacks adequate leadership. How could a coach in the NFL with 1:43 seconds left in the game, close to field goal position for overtime allow his QB to throw the ball so far down the field for a stupid play and interception? Your coach needs to Re-retire, he has lost that magic touch.

It's called playing to win
When you take those chances you expect your QB to know when not to throw that pass. But this QB was taught to do something else in the pass and just reverted to that. But I won't knock him for going for the win, I just say he should have thrown that away

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:42 am

phat cat wrote:I once was a Redskin fan and I still kinda watch you guys. Your team has heart but lacks adequate leadership. How could a coach in the NFL with 1:43 seconds left in the game, close to field goal position for overtime allow his QB to throw the ball so far down the field for a stupid play and interception? Your coach needs to Re-retire, he has lost that magic touch.

And why would a lost fan bother wasting space on OUR message board? Go To He......

NC43Hog · Post by **NC43Hog** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:45 am

Go for the win, but geez, run some damn time off the clock - there is such a thing as scoring too fast - I've seen it too many times when the other team comes in an scores.

Play it safe and for God's sake what's with the delay of game penalties.

Oh, and I am no newbie fan - I was here before Allen and will be here after Gibbs. Thick and thin - just tired of the thin!

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:51 am

look, there is no question that it was one the DUMBEST throws i've ever seen. HOWEVER, i can't BELIEVE none of you are mentioning the fact that it CLEARLY was not an interception!!! only a blind lunatic could actually think that he had posession and both feet in bounds after watching that replay. that ref needs to be beaten until he is just a pile of blood and organic tissue, with little chunks of bone.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:07 am

It was an interception, plain and simple!! Anyone that thinks otherwise, isn't aware of the rules.

SkinsLaVar · Post by **SkinsLaVar** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:16 am

When I think of that pass for an interception, with plenty of time left and on a first down. I think: wtf? WHY

Why would u blow a win like that? If he ain't open, don't throw it, especially when it's first down and plenty of time left on the playclock. Ramsey, Ramsey, Ramsey...when will ever learn?

And Gibbs...Why would you call that endzone play with plenty of time left? Gawsh...we choked at the last minute. Funk.

Other than that, I think to myself. What team did we play against? Probably the best team in the NFL. And to lose by 3 points..it's upsetting and emotional. That would have been a huge win for this franchise, but it just shows you how good we're becoming.

Brush it off...let's just beat the crap outa the niners next week!

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:27 am

JPFair wrote:It was an interception, plain and simple!! Anyone that thinks otherwise, isn't aware of the rules.

what in the hell are you talking about?????? what rules!???

the rule says that a receiver (even if it is a defender) must HAVE POSESSION OF THE BALL WHILE TWO FEET LAND IN BOUNDS. how can you possibly say that he met the criteria set forth in the rules?? he didn't have any kind of control of the ball until every part of his body had touched out of bounds.

just because the ref says something, doesn't mean that's what happened. use your eyes. think for yourself. and don't dare tell someone they don't understand the "rules" when clearly you are ignoring them yourself. :roll:

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:56 am

die cowboys die wrote:
JPFair wrote:It was an interception, plain and simple!! Anyone that thinks otherwise, isn't aware of the rules.

what in the hell are you talking about?????? what rules!???

the rule says that a receiver (even if it is a defender) must HAVE POSESSION OF THE BALL WHILE TWO FEET LAND IN BOUNDS. how can you possibly say that he met the criteria set forth in the rules?? he didn't have any kind of control of the ball until every part of his body had touched out of bounds.

just because the ref says something, doesn't mean that's what happened. use your eyes. think for yourself. and don't dare tell someone they don't understand the "rules" when clearly you are ignoring them yourself.

The rule also says one knee=2 feet

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:58 am

phat cat wrote:I once was a Redskin fan and I still kinda watch you guys. Your team has heart but lacks adequate leadership. How could a coach in the NFL with 1:43 seconds left in the game, close to field goal position for overtime allow his QB to throw the ball so far down the field for a stupid play and interception? Your coach needs to Re-retire, he has lost that magic touch.

You need to retire from this board until you can bring something constructive to the table.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:00 am

1niksder wrote:
die cowboys die wrote:
JPFair wrote:It was an interception, plain and simple!! Anyone that thinks otherwise, isn't aware of the rules.

what in the hell are you talking about?????? what rules!???

the rule says that a receiver (even if it is a defender) must HAVE POSESSION OF THE BALL WHILE TWO FEET LAND IN BOUNDS. how can you possibly say that he met the criteria set forth in the rules?? he didn't have any kind of control of the ball until every part of his body had touched out of bounds.

just because the ref says something, doesn't mean that's what happened. use your eyes. think for yourself. and don't dare tell someone they don't understand the "rules" when clearly you are ignoring them yourself.

The rule also says one knee=2 feet

IMO he was didn't have complete control over the ball.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:33 am

The ball didn't move when his knee hit the ground, or when he did. It did a little before the knee, but not after.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:44 am

one knee may equal two feet, but i would presume that's only if the knee lands in bounds FIRST. it's been a few hours now, but i don't think that's what happened.

aside from that, the ref said he "had posession with both feet in bounds", which was clearly wrong.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:47 am

The knee was in bounds. Give it up.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:50 am

the knee was in bounds when he did not have control of the ball! that means nothing. by the time he had control he was out of bounds with every part of his body. you could see the ball spinning around in his hands! don't eliminate any credibility you have, GF. admit you got lucky.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:56 am

die cowboys die wrote:don't eliminate any credibility you have, GF. admit you got lucky.

Ask me if I care what you think. His knee was down, he had control. He had control when he landed. You can say otherwise until you're blue in the fingers, but it won't make it true.

You're upset over a close game in a miserable season and making weak excuses.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:57 am

god, you're a loser. when the ball is spinning around, it is not in control. you need to shut the hell up.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:59 am

You can make your attacks all you want, but you're still wrong.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:09 am

you demanded to be attacked by saying something so stupid. go find a replay, watch it, and honestly tell yourself that he had control of the ball.

now, i can't say that i wouldn't be similarly biased if it had been a redskins player making the exact same "catch". i would probably want to say "ah, it's good enough, that's a catch!". but the difference is that i wouldn't be going on to an eagles message board and proclaiming my biased and tainted opinion.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:11 am

I saw the replay several times in high definition from three feet away.

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:08 am

just because the ref says something, doesn't mean that's what happened. use your eyes. think for yourself. and don't dare tell someone they don't understand the "rules" when clearly you are ignoring them yourself.

Dude, you're delusional!! The replays had a perfect angle on it. And, if you think you know more than the officials, then you're even more delusional than you appear to be.

welch · Post by **welch** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:35 am

Interception. Clearly. No use grumping about that, even though it would have been nice if the refs had overturned it.

Now, why did Ramsey throw that pass, with another receiver in the endzone, and probably someone short?

JPFair · Post by **JPFair** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:02 am

Interception. Clearly. No use grumping about that, even though it would have been nice if the refs had overturned it.

Now, why did Ramsey throw that pass, with another receiver in the endzone, and probably someone short?

Agreed!!

redskins-28 · Post by **redskins-28** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:30 am

I can't believe you guys are arguing over this.... "was it an int or not" is irrelevant. I'm sad to say it but the original thread started here is right..... it was a VERY dumb play call. We easily had a tie at the least to go into OT and we had more than enough time on the clock to play it safe (as Gibbs says he wants to do) and win the game in regulation.

It was a stupid throw on Ramsey's part and if Gibbs called the play that was even dumber.... we had the game won (even with all of our careless penalties) and blew it.

Nobody is more angry than me but we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Just like every other game this year that we lost...... WE BEAT OURSELVES!!! And that hurts the most.

:cry:

NC43Hog · Post by **NC43Hog** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:50 am

redskins-28 wrote:I can't believe you guys are arguing over this.... "was it an int or not" is irrelevant. I'm sad to say it but the original thread started here is right..... it was a VERY dumb play call. We easily had a tie at the least to go into OT and we had more than enough time on the clock to play it safe (as Gibbs says he wants to do) and win the game in regulation.

It was a stupid throw on Ramsey's part and if Gibbs called the play that was even dumber.... we had the game won (even with all of our careless penalties) and blew it.

Nobody is more angry than me but we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Just like every other game this year that we lost...... WE BEAT OURSELVES!!! And that hurts the most.

Well said, and what I have been saying all along. WE LOST - from top to bottom.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

stupid plays

stupid plays

Re: stupid plays

Re: stupid plays

Re: stupid plays