Redrum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:08 pm
I think we have pretty much been given a definitive answer on whether Brady made Belichick look good or the other way around.
Redrum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:08 pm
I think we have pretty much been given a definitive answer on whether Brady made Belichick look good or the other way around.
I agree.
It seems more like a failure of Belichick the GM than the coach.
What I saw on replay was his foot came down on the arm and then the TOW touched as well. NOT ON THE WHITE line. To be clear what I saw. Go ahead and be contrarian though. That is ALL you do.
He may be a contrarian but he is right, toe came down on the line
Here is the one angle of the call in the Washington v. Eagles game. I think it shows pretty clearly here that the toe is down in bounds. This was the only angle though.
Very, very close. But this was the angle I thought indicated that this was a catch.
Last edited by 13F11B on Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
He may be a contrarian but he is right, toe came down on the line
Here is the one angle of the call in the Washington v. Eagles game. I think it shows pretty clearly here that the toe is down in bounds. This was the only angle though.
Very, very close. But this was the angle I thought indicated that this was a catch.
It did seem closest from that angle, but a couple of things: 1) what looks like a space is from the dark trim of his shoes (looks like he has the Jordan I spikes on) 2) you can tell if his toe is even down in that angle bc he was stepping on the DBs forearm.
Other angles it appears his toe was over as it touched down, but those weren’t great either. It just wasn’t close enough to overturn
Here is the one angle of the call in the Washington v. Eagles game. I think it shows pretty clearly here that the toe is down in bounds. This was the only angle though.
Very, very close. But this was the angle I thought indicated that this was a catch.
It did seem closest from that angle, but a couple of things: 1) what looks like a space is from the dark trim of his shoes (looks like he has the Jordan I spikes on) 2) you can tell if his toe is even down in that angle bc he was stepping on the DBs forearm.
Other angles it appears his toe was over as it touched down, but those weren’t great either. It just wasn’t close enough to overturn
Agreed. It is close. A lot goes into it. Plays aren't overturned if it's close, it has to be clear and obvious. It's not the "Montreal Screwjob" @13F11B was trying to make it out to be.
Bootz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 10:18 am
The fact that the Falcons had a chance to get Lamar Jackson and they said "I'm good" is CRAZY. Ridder is trash.
It did seem closest from that angle, but a couple of things: 1) what looks like a space is from the dark trim of his shoes (looks like he has the Jordan I spikes on) 2) you can tell if his toe is even down in that angle bc he was stepping on the DBs forearm.
Other angles it appears his toe was over as it touched down, but those weren’t great either. It just wasn’t close enough to overturn
Agreed. It is close. A lot goes into it. Plays aren't overturned if it's close, it has to be clear and obvious. It's not the "Montreal Screwjob" @13F11B was trying to make it out to be.
Never said it was a Montreal Screwjob. Guess it was MUCH closer than you initially attacked me about though. You will never admit that though.
Here is the one angle of the call in the Washington v. Eagles game. I think it shows pretty clearly here that the toe is down in bounds. This was the only angle though.
Very, very close. But this was the angle I thought indicated that this was a catch.
It did seem closest from that angle, but a couple of things: 1) what looks like a space is from the dark trim of his shoes (looks like he has the Jordan I spikes on) 2) you can tell if his toe is even down in that angle bc he was stepping on the DBs forearm.
Other angles it appears his toe was over as it touched down, but those weren’t great either. It just wasn’t close enough to overturn
Yeah, on TV without the ability to freeze the image and zoom in on it, I thought it was clearly in. I see what you are saying about the bottom might be black cleats.
Agreed. It is close. A lot goes into it. Plays aren't overturned if it's close, it has to be clear and obvious. It's not the "Montreal Screwjob" @13F11B was trying to make it out to be.
Never said it was a Montreal Screwjob. Guess it was MUCH closer than you initially attacked me about though. You will never admit that though.
13F11B wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 4:27 pm
Washington might get screwed by a bad call. It was caught inbounds and they called it incomplete. Review in progress.
Never said it was a Montreal Screwjob. Guess it was MUCH closer than you initially attacked me about though. You will never admit that though.
13F11B wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 4:27 pm
Washington might get screwed by a bad call. It was caught inbounds and they called it incomplete. Review in progress.
You did notice that there was NO mention of Montreal. Right?
It is not my fault if you can't understand what the difference is between "get screwed" on a bad call and a "Montreal Screwjob". I did not say there was a conspiracy to screw Washington.
You did notice that there was NO mention of Montreal. Right?
It is not my fault if you can't understand what the difference is between "get screwed" on a bad call and a "Montreal Screwjob". I did not say there was a conspiracy to screw Washington.
You are a putz.
That was obviously an embellishment on what you said. I assume you know what those are, seeing as you said I mentioned Brandon Staley as coach of the year, which I didn't.
You did notice that there was NO mention of Montreal. Right?
It is not my fault if you can't understand what the difference is between "get screwed" on a bad call and a "Montreal Screwjob". I did not say there was a conspiracy to screw Washington.
You are a putz.
That was obviously an embellishment on what you said. I assume you know what those are, seeing as you said I mentioned Brandon Staley as coach of the year, which I didn't.
You're so salty today.
Yes, I know what embellishment is. You do it all the time in discussion. You make up, in your own head, what people said to shift the goalposts in discussions so you can be "right".
What this actually was is you getting caught and having to backpedal.
That was obviously an embellishment on what you said. I assume you know what those are, seeing as you said I mentioned Brandon Staley as coach of the year, which I didn't.
You're so salty today.
Yes, I know what embellishment is. You do it all the time in discussion. You make up, in your own head, what people said to shift the goalposts in discussions so you can be "right".
What this actually was is you getting caught and having to backpedal.
Getting caught in what, that you didn't exactly say "Montreal"? That's your smoking gun?
Fine. Wanna go there, let's go. Show me where I said Brandon Staley was coach of the year.
Yes, I know what embellishment is. You do it all the time in discussion. You make up, in your own head, what people said to shift the goalposts in discussions so you can be "right".
What this actually was is you getting caught and having to backpedal.
Getting caught in what, that you didn't exactly say "Montreal"? That's your smoking gun?
Fine. Wanna go there, let's go. Show me where I said Brandon Staley was coach of the year.
Yeah, I got pissed off at your "embellishments" and did that as a retort to you about Stayey. I am not going to let you off the hook for your repeated "embellishments" that you then argue against. Constantly.
Are you really pretending to now know what a "Montreal Screwjob" is? Really?
Getting caught in what, that you didn't exactly say "Montreal"? That's your smoking gun?
Fine. Wanna go there, let's go. Show me where I said Brandon Staley was coach of the year.
Yeah, I got pissed off at your "embellishments" and did that as a retort to you about Stayey. I am not going to let you off the hook for your repeated "embellishments" that you then argue against. Constantly.
Are you really pretending to now know what a "Montreal Screwjob" is? Really?
Yeah, I got pissed off at your "embellishments" and did that as a retort to you about Stayey. I am not going to let you off the hook for your repeated "embellishments" that you then argue against. Constantly.
Are you really pretending to now know what a "Montreal Screwjob" is? Really?
Constantly. Okay, like what?
I said what I said buttercup.
Still not addressing your dipshit comment about a Montreal Screwjob? Can't man up, can you?
