These refs have their heads so far up their asses their goddamned noses are triggering their gag reflex.
Well hot damn. Looks like I may need to find a bum soon. We're in the lead of the NFC North? What? Wow. And in the unlikely event that we beat the Packers this coming week (hopefully they're not using the rage from capping a 3 game losing streak with a loss to the fuckin Lions), we'll be, in effect two and a half games ahead with a head to head win. Crazy.
What the fuck happened to the Packers? Is someone blackmailing Aaron with photos of him fucking a dude to throw games? It makes zero sense. Or did the fact all his receivers aren't that great come to light? Speaking of receivers, holy fucking shit the Giants WRs are fucking talented as hell. Every single time the ball was in the air, I was scared for the Patriots D. That game took a good 6 months off my life, but I'm so fucking happy the Patriots got that win. Sucks that we lose Edelman, but Jesus F. Christ. Also, Blount couldn't get carries in Pittsburgh? What the hell, dude is a beast, no idea how other teams couldn't use him. He does just enough to keep defenses back a bit. Also does a good job of scoring TD's once in awhile.
I don't know what in the fucking fuck is going on but they are just not on the same page. They look like shit, everywhere. I don't know if it's infighting or what but, something is fucking up. I think I may be right. The Vikings are first in the division. WHAT? Jesus fucking christ pull your heads out and work together as one unit. Fuck me. This sucks.
They aren't that good, Cobb clearly isn't a #1, but the playcalling has been atrocious. They ran so many 3-4 yd out routes that were blanketed and Rodgers got really frustrated and impatient. The playcalling was vanilla and uninventive. Add that to the injuries and that terrible D and they suddenly are in a lot of trouble. The Giants WRs are as good as Coughlin's clock management is bad. No idea how you fuck up an end of game situation that bad. 2:05 left and your opponent is down to their final TO and you run not 1 but 2 different passing plays? Are you fucking high? Patriots at best should have gotten the ball with no TOs and about a minute left down 2. But nope, ol Tommy just decided to call 3 pass plays.
Making this the second game this year they've blown due to poor clock management, and others that had me biting my nails. There is absolutely no excuse for a veteran quarterback and a head coach with 100 years in the league to handle the end of games this poorly.
Speaking of, I have a question. I played football growing up and in high school, but I've never coached. And, I've watched a bunch of really stupid coaching decisions. A lot of times, people can convince me of what logic was behind what I thought was stupid, but they tell me was a tough call. Can somebody explain Dan Quinn's thought process for the end of the Falcons-49ers game from the previous week? I think I am missing something that Atlanta considered in a different way. The Falcons had the ball at about the half yard line, 4th and goal, and they were down 17-13. They elected to kick the field goal instead of going for the touchdown. There was about 3 minutes left. So, obviously, the field is not enough points to win or tie. So, the coach is thinking that the Falcons best chance to win at that point, is to get three points, kick off (they didn't try an onside), and stop the 49ers to force a punt, after a three-and-out. The Falcons had two timeouts and the two-minute warning to get the clock stopped. Then, they either hope for a big punt return or a drive down for another field goal to win. But, why not go for the touchdown there? If it's an incomplete pass, SF starts their drive at the half yard line, where all sorts of things can go wrong. You've already factored into your decision-making, that you're counting on your defense to stop them. If you get a safety, they kick to you and a field goal still wins it for you. If you just stop them, they're punting from their own end zone, and you might get a better return to set up a shot for a potential touchdown for the win. In either decision, you HAVE to stop SF for a three-and-out to win. In one version, you let them start at the 20 to do that. In the other, you might have scored a TD and made it moot, but if you don't score, they start on the half yard line.
Speaking of questions, during the Lions v Packers game the Loins opted to decline a penalty leaving GB with a 4th and like 2 yards I think. GB lines up to go for it. Then the Lions change their mind and accept the flag moving GB back, with a 3rd and about 13 I believe. Is that legal? They went to Mike P to ask but the answer he gave was very wishy washy.
The only logic that makes sense is if you think you can get a FG but not a TD, regardless of the distance. So either the coach had very little faith in his offense to score a TD or, most likely, he just made a stupid decision.
There seems to be a big part of coaching that is just risk-avoidance. The logic being that going for it on 4th down and coming away with no points in a close game appears like a worse outcome than bringing it to a 1-point game. In this particular case, you must force a 3-and-out either way but in the case of a missed TD you must get into the endzone to win it, which is a pretty high bar with only a little time left. The Falcons had a single TD on the day, where is the confidence that they were going to be able to score another with 2 minutes left in the game? Personally, I don't like the call, but at least I can see why a team that has struggled to score touchdowns all game would not be confident in their ability to get into the endzone. I basically don't like any field goal from the half yard line that isn't go-ahead points inside the last few minutes of the game. It's awfully hard to prevent a team from moving the ball two feet, and it's such a field position advantage to have a team trapped there going the other way.
OK I also couldn't understand that decision. I wasn't watching the game but saw the play-by-play and couldn't for the life of me figure out why one would do that. It was so preposterous that I figured there had to be something I didn't know. Especially since the Falcons had only scored 13 points thus far, so I don't know how they could justifiably say "well of course we'll get back in field goal range."
The Falcons had 4 scoring drives and another few drives that stalled on SF's side of the field. They also had a bunch of kickoff/punt return yardage. Given 1 TD on the day I'd say they had more reason to think they could move the football than to think they could finish a drive with a TD. Like I said, I think it's a bad call, but they did have some reason to believe they could get within field goal range.
You also have a supposedly top QB, one of the best RBs in the league this year, and a monster in Julio Jones and you had no faith in either of those 3 to get you half a yard. Thats a call you make if you're playing with a rookie QB or if you're the 2000 Ravens with a nonexistent offense and a historic defense.
That's exactly why I think it was a bad call. I'm just pointing out that the low scoring game isn't a good reason to believe they can't get within field goal range.
Didn't see the game, but any way you slice it that's just a terrible call. If you have the confidence your defense is going to get a stop that means you're starting the next drive in great field position even if you don't convert. If it was seriously at the half yard line that's one of the worst HC decisions I've heard of in awhile. Might as well not even take the field if you don't like giving your offense a chance there. Brad Childress used to make bizarre brain dead calls like this all the time. It was one of many reasons he's no longer a head coach in the NFL.
Inadvertent whistle? The FUCK was that? Cost the Pats a huge gain/possible touchdown. Not to mention I would have had double Fantasy points from Brady/Amendola