First of all, games are never "IN THE BAG!!!!" until the game clock reads 0:00, and you still have the lead. Then, and only then are they "IN THE BAG!!!!".
Can't believe I had to point that out,...but I guess I did.

The play we are bantering about would have been blown up even it it was a running play, with an extended arm attempting a hand-off, being even more of a liability.

It's all about the EXECUTION and not nearly as much about the call.

But I can understand when you're looking for any reason to hate on "the coaching", that would be a call you would attack.

socalphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all, games are never "IN THE BAG!!!!"
> until the game clock reads 0:00, and you still
> have the lead. Then, and only then are they "IN
> THE BAG!!!!".
> Can't believe I had to point that out,...but I
> guess I did.

RESPONSE: LOL. LOL. LOL. Okay, gang. You see how he defends a call that put at risk AND ACTUALLY BLEW a game we had won....how does he justify it... by saying the only thing he can....that "a game is not won until its won". LOL.

That allows a coach to run any stupid play in the world and make the excuse that "Hey, the game wasn't over yet. So it might as well have been the opening play."

LOL. In other words, SoCalPhin HAS NO DEFENSE TO THE FACT THAT THEY RAN A DUMBAS_ PLAY.

Maybe that's because Socalphin himself is a dumb a_ _?


>
> The play we are bantering about would have been
> blown up even it it was a running play, with an
> extended arm attempting a hand-off, being even
> more of a liability.

Not really. Again you are showing your lack of knowledge. I
As it was, the defensive lineman was able TO HIT THE BALL DIRECTLY BECAUSE HE WAS ABLE TO CONTACT THE BALL.

EVEN WITH HIS BACK TO THE DEFENDER AND THE QB'S HAND EXTENDED, THE HIT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO THE QB'S BACK, NOT TO THE BALL.

ANSWER THAT.

>
> It's all about the EXECUTION and not nearly as
> much about the call.
>
> But I can understand when you're looking for any
> reason to hate on "the coaching", that would be a
> call you would attack.

You are STILL simply blaming the execution on....wait for it....ON A DAMN PLAY THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RUN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You can only blame execution if the play itself is at least arguable. THat's how you defend a play that COULD HAVE GOTTEN YOU SOMETHING BUT WAS RISKY is to say that it should have been better executed.

But in order to even get THERE, you first have to answer the question WHY WAS THE DAMN PLAY RUN IN THE FIRST PLACE?

It is not an answer to try to leap frog that question by blaming the execution.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> socalphin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

>
> Not really. Again you are showing your lack of
> knowledge. I
> As it was, the defensive lineman was able TO HIT
> THE BALL DIRECTLY BECAUSE HE WAS ABLE TO CONTACT
> THE BALL.
>
> EVEN WITH HIS BACK TO THE DEFENDER AND THE QB'S
> HAND EXTENDED, THE HIT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO THE QB'S
> BACK, NOT TO THE BALL.
>
> ANSWER THAT.
>
> >
Oh you poor DF.

Do I have to go into explaining what a wrap up from behind does to an extended arm holding the ball?? Really??

Ok. Ill try not to use any big words here.

It causes a fumble 90% of the time. That means 9 times out of 10...OK?

Now I have to go on with my life, I'm done trying to educate the challenged.

it was a dumb call period. if it had worked then it was an OH NO! oh yeah!

dumb call either way.