Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

If Cam, Romo or Peyton threw that game ending INT....


GoobyPls

Recommended Posts

Yep.  Russell Wilson is the luckiest athlete I can ever recall.  Dude pulls off more insanely lucky plays than anyone I've ever seen.  hell, the play right before the INT was sheer luck.  Perfect pass breakup, WR falls, ball lands right in his lap.  Seriously, dafuq is that?  Seems like that type of lucky BS happens with RW all the time.  Then, he throws a back breaking, Super Bowl losing INT and not one mention of the fact that the ball was poorly placed high and inside on a quick slant.  If that ball is put into the WR's body like you want on that route, it's an incomplete pass at worse, likely defensive pass interference.  But, once again, Wilson lucks out and all the ruckus is about the play call.  Sure, the play call sucked, but if the ball was thrown properly, it WAS a relatively safe play.  Still dumb as fug not to just give the ball to Lynch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  Russell Wilson is the luckiest athlete I can ever recall.  Dude pulls off more insanely lucky plays than anyone I've ever seen.  hell, the play right before the INT was sheer luck.  Perfect pass breakup, WR falls, ball lands right in his lap.  Seriously, dafuq is that?  Seems like that type of lucky BS happens with RW all the time.  Then, he throws a back breaking, Super Bowl losing INT and not one mention of the fact that the ball was poorly placed high and inside on a quick slant.  If that ball is put into the WR's body like you want on that route, it's an incomplete pass at worse, likely defensive pass interference.  But, once again, Wilson lucks out and all the ruckus is about the play call.  Sure, the play call sucked, but if the ball was thrown properly, it WAS a relatively safe play.  Still dumb as fug not to just give the ball to Lynch.

 

I've said just that.  Credit to Butler for making a great play and flat out jumping the route, but there was no reason for him to lead the receiver, it's not like he needed a run after the catch.  Wilson, if anything, was the worst part of the play.  Seattle had the personnell matchup in their favor, and like I've said, a pass was not the worst play call in the world considering IF they have to run 3 plays from the 1, 1 would have to be a pass, why not then when the matchup favored them and open the playbook the next 2 plays.  Wilson never looked at any other receiver and the pass was not good.  IMO, he cost them the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is their darling, that is for sure.  I think it is funny how he has a RB who gets 5 yards after getting hit at the LOS, a defense that not only keeps the other teams from scoring, but gives him turnovers with great field position.  His "Hail Mary" 2-pointer vs. Green Bay is all I needed to see. 

 

Wilson is staring to believe the hype.  You can tell by his answers when interviewed by the adoring media.  He is not that good--he is elusive and able to improvise, but when you are usually leading the game and you have a defense that has your back, a RB who brings 8 to the box--really?

 

That is like punching another kid on the playground while your buddies hold his arms and legs.  Then walking around like you are one tough hombre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said just that.  Credit to Butler for making a great play and flat out jumping the route, but there was no reason for him to lead the receiver, it's not like he needed a run after the catch.  Wilson, if anything, was the worst part of the play.  Seattle had the personnell matchup in their favor, and like I've said, a pass was not the worst play call in the world considering IF they have to run 3 plays from the 1, 1 would have to be a pass, why not then when the matchup favored them and open the playbook the next 2 plays.  Wilson never looked at any other receiver and the pass was not good.  IMO, he cost them the game. 

 

This is what is not being talked about. If you run on 2nd down and get stuffed you have to call your timeout.

 

Now it's 3rd down w/no timeouts on the one..........do you pass here ??

 

or take the chance you don't get stuffed again running.

 

If you get stuffed on 2-3 down running...........you might not get a chance for 4th down.

 

IMO..........it was just a bad pass by RW and a great defensive play by Butler.

 

I also believe a better pass play would have been to put RW on the move with run/pass options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Romo had thrown it I think the call would still be a big question mark because they have Murray in the backfield.

 

I have heard some people bring it up, but the fact remains that when you have the best RB in the NFL and you only need him to gain one yard on three attempts to win the Super Bowl then not giving him the ball is awful and should be the biggest talking point regardless of who the QB is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said just that.  Credit to Butler for making a great play and flat out jumping the route, but there was no reason for him to lead the receiver, it's not like he needed a run after the catch.  Wilson, if anything, was the worst part of the play.  Seattle had the personnell matchup in their favor, and like I've said, a pass was not the worst play call in the world considering IF they have to run 3 plays from the 1, 1 would have to be a pass, why not then when the matchup favored them and open the playbook the next 2 plays.  Wilson never looked at any other receiver and the pass was not good.  IMO, he cost them the game. 

 

True. Wilson, did stare down the receiver, and placed a high throw.

 

If he would have thrown it at the receivers feet (for a sliding catch), or even in the gut, with a bit more risk, the ball is probably caught or deflected.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what is not being talked about. If you run on 2nd down and get stuffed you have to call your timeout.

 

Now it's 3rd down w/no timeouts on the one..........do you pass here ??

 

or take the chance you don't get stuffed again running.

 

If you get stuffed on 2-3 down running...........you might not get a chance for 4th down.

 

IMO..........it was just a bad pass by RW and a great defensive play by Butler.

 

I also believe a better pass play would have been to put RW on the move with run/pass options.

 

You run the ball on second down and call the timeout if he does not get in.  Then you look at the clock and take the time to assess what the best play call is and if you can run it twice.  I think you can run two plays from the one in eighteen seconds or so.

 

You could also, like you said, call Wilson on a bootleg with a run/pass option where he can throw it away if neither option is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is their darling, that is for sure.  I think it is funny how he has a RB who gets 5 yards after getting hit at the LOS, a defense that not only keeps the other teams from scoring, but gives him turnovers with great field position.  His "Hail Mary" 2-pointer vs. Green Bay is all I needed to see. 

 

Wilson is staring to believe the hype.  You can tell by his answers when interviewed by the adoring media.  He is not that good--he is elusive and able to improvise, but when you are usually leading the game and you have a defense that has your back, a RB who brings 8 to the box--really?

 

That is like punching another kid on the playground while your buddies hold his arms and legs.  Then walking around like you are one tough hombre.

 

Shoot, the good field position is the short of it. His defense, actually scores points for him, as they did about  24 unanswered in the Superbowl, before he/Seattle's offense, or Denver scored a point. I Heard a stat, that mentioned Seattles Defense Has Led The League in Scoring the Past Two years as well.

 

And yes, he's always had the luxury of playing with a running back that gets the immediate attention of the defense (besides a great OC, and defense), which takes a tremendous amount of play by play pressure off of him and responsibility. This alone, makes him peripheral to what they do on offense (Wilson, works off of the run game and what the defense does to prepare for it). He's not the guy opposing defenses focus on primarily.

 

And I agree; he's letting the media stuff go to his head (which his probably one of the reasons why we saw the stories about many of his teammates not liking him last year). The thought of him talking about winning six Superbowls, with his limited skill set, and the fact that the defense, and other players on the team were the bigger contributors and Super Bowl (or potential Super Bowl MVP, if Seattle won this year), makes his hubris even more classless and unbelievable. Be humble man, the way the media portrays you.

 

He either, truly really believes this junk, or is trying to play up to his fake media image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You run the ball on second down and call the timeout if he does not get in.  Then you look at the clock and take the time to assess what the best play call is and if you can run it twice.  I think you can run two plays from the one in eighteen seconds or so.

 

You could also, like you said, call Wilson on a bootleg with a run/pass option where he can throw it away if neither option is there.

 

 

Agreed but...........you ever see a Lynch run take 2 seconds ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...