(08-24-2015, 02:31 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Hmmmm imagine that....the opposing coach saying it wasn't a read/zone option. Wow
Either way he you quoted him saying HE HANDED OFF....so roughing the passer again was the wrong call! You can't flag roughing the passer with a handoff!
And still if they would have flagged them for unnecessary roughness......that would be a tough call too. All up to interpretation. He didn't go for a hit below the knees as he clearing wrapped up and DID NOT hit him with the helmet or pads...wow.

What reason would he have to lie?

But it's good to know that other teams have the Ravens' fan base's blessing to tee-off on Flacco after every hand off. Because he might be a runner and so he gets zero QB protections.

(08-24-2015, 03:39 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: What reason would he have to lie?

But it's good to know that other teams have the Ravens' fan base's blessing to tee-off on Flacco after every hand off. Because he might be a runner and so he gets zero QB protections.

Kelly doesnt want that to be a legal hit because it severely limits how he can use bradford in his offense. He just cut out half the playbook, or needs to expect him to miss half the season.
They may want to be careful. If they tee off on Flacco. They may end up with a concussion like Burfit did.

Just FYI (since it appears you don't know the difference in plays)  there is a difference in the read/zone option than just handing the ball off.
Read/zone option usually leaves your QB exposed for big hits. Might want to read up or learn the difference on how the plays are ran or designed.

Good to know you don't know the difference between a hand off and an read/zone option play.

NFL: hit was legal


http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13499734/nfl-says-terrell-suggs-low-hit-sam-bradford-was-legal


Am I still a ******** homer who never watched football?

(08-24-2015, 01:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: WAS A HUGE PICTURE IN THE MIDDLE OF A THREAD THAT YOU LIKELY WERE IN FREQUENTLY!!

It's not memorable to me because that holds no importance to me, but, like I said, as a Special Ed teacher, I'd assume you'd be infuriated and all over that!!  

Typical.

As far as the hit, it was a questionable call in the legality of it (I was listening to the VP of officiating this morning and he was against it, Willy McGinest was defending it), but a completely dirty hit in the reality of it.

Considering I wasn't involved, it's not memorable to me. Sorry, but even you are saying I may hAve read it, but you don't know who posted in the thread. I can't remember all the threads you post in.

As far as the hit, you're narrowing into the issue: was it a cheap shot? NFL has said its legal, but it could be a cheap shot in some people's minds

(08-24-2015, 04:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: NFL: hit was legal


http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13499734/nfl-says-terrell-suggs-low-hit-sam-bradford-was-legal


Am I still a ******** homer who never watched football?

He doesn't care what the rules say.....he doesn't care what the NFL says....he doesn't care what the VP of NFL Officiating says or the former says.
Murdock says it was ILLEGAL...so MUST BE AN ILLEGAL hit.

Don't you know he knows more than the NFL?!
What have you been watching for the last 5 years??

(08-24-2015, 03:48 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Kelly doesnt want that to be a legal hit because it severely limits how he can use bradford in his offense. He just cut out half the playbook, or needs to expect him to miss half the season.
They may want to be careful. If they tee off on Flacco. They may end up with a concussion like Burfit did.

Just FYI (since it appears you don't know the difference in plays)  there is a difference in the read/zone option than just handing the ball off.
Read/zone option usually leaves your QB exposed for big hits. Might want to read up or learn the difference on how the plays are ran or designed.

Good to know you don't know the difference between a hand off and an read/zone option play.

I forgot you know the plays in Philly better than Chip Kelly.

I guess that head coaching job you have is really paying off. Good luck winning that Super Bowl, coach.

Suggs us still a scum bag targeting cheap shot artist.

(08-24-2015, 05:58 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I forgot you know the plays in Philly better than Chip Kelly.

I guess that head coaching job you have is really paying off. Good luck winning that Super Bowl, coach.

Suggs us still a scum bag targeting cheap shot artist.

I guess Chip knows better than the NFL too.
Lol...it's real hilarious as you show your lack of understanding......I guess you didn't read oldschoolomen's post on the last page explaining the difference between a hand off and the read or zone option play is ran.

Let me try to break it down for beginners:

He handed off with two hands. Regular handoff plays the QB uses one hand. The two handed motion is for read/option plays so the QB can pull out at his option. They used the read/option "look" there, even if Bradford was given no option on the play call. NFL defenses aren't mind readers. You put the ball in there with that two handed motion, from the defense perspective, you have the option to pull it out. Bradford makes the pullout motion as though he might set up to pass or spin/bootleg to his left.


The only difference may be the QB did not have the option to pull the ball out, but the only ones who knew that were Kelly, Bradford and RB .... everyone else was moving in zone read patterns but the play was a called run all the way just out of a zone read set.

You're obviously not too familiar with play designs.

NFL says no foul Chip. If it looks like a Duck, talks like a Duck and walks like a Duck it's an Iggle.

So I guess where we are is, you think you're right, and the whole rest of the world says you're wrong.

Did you read the link Pat posted? The NFL said it wasn't illegal or should've been flagged. . So I'll take the NFLs word over YOU or Chip
/thread.

Take notes T Sizzle

(08-24-2015, 06:19 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: I guess Chip knows better than the NFL too.
Lol...it's real hilarious as you show your lack of understanding......I guess you didn't read oldschoolomen's post on the last page explaining the difference between a hand off and the read or zone option play is ran.

Let me try to break it down for beginners:

He handed off with two hands. Regular handoff plays the QB uses one hand. The two handed motion is for read/option plays so the QB can pull out at his option. They used the read/option "look" there, even if Bradford was given no option on the play call. NFL defenses aren't mind readers. You put the ball in there with that two handed motion, from the defense perspective, you have the option to pull it out. Bradford makes the pullout motion as though he might set up to pass or spin/bootleg to his left.


The only difference may be the QB did not have the option to pull the ball out, but the only ones who knew that were Kelly, Bradford and RB .... everyone else was moving in zone read patterns but the play was a called run all the way just out of a zone read set.

You're obviously not too familiar with play designs.

NFL says no foul Chip. If it looks like a Duck, talks like a Duck and walks like a Duck it's an Iggle.

So I guess where we are is, you think you're right, and the whole rest of the world says you're wrong.

Did you read the link Pat posted? The NFL said it wasn't illegal or should've been flagged. . So I'll take the NFLs word over YOU or Chip
/thread.

Toot toot.

Suggs is still a scum bag targeting cheap shot artist.

(08-24-2015, 04:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Considering I wasn't involved, it's not memorable to me. Sorry, but even you are saying I may hAve read it, but you don't know who posted in the thread. I can't remember all the threads you post in.

As far as the hit, you're narrowing into the issue: was it a cheap shot? NFL has said its legal, but it could be a cheap shot in some people's minds

Pat making excuses for letting people disrespect and offend the less fortunate...............  so typical that I'm not even surprised anymore.

Considering you were most likely involved in the thread and you definitely saw it because there was never too many new threads in the Smack Forum of the old board, it should definitely be memorable to you consider you made it your life's work to educate not only the kids that the picture was disrespecting in the worst way possible, but also all of the non-Special Ed students at your school that you should be teaching to respect everyone.

As for the hit, NFL said it's legal, but, as I pointed out, even the head of officiating called it dirty.

Here's Steven A Smith saying "it was legal, but it was dirty because of it's intent."

Suggs launched himself at Bradford, which may have been legal if Bradford was for sure going to carry out a fake, but he launched himself before Bradford even began to carry out the fake, which makes it illegal.

Even if he hadn't launched himself before he started to carryout the fake, did he really think Bradford had the speed or moves to make him miss if he didn't hit him right away?  That makes the play dirty.

(08-24-2015, 07:01 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Toot toot.

Suggs is still a scum bag targeting cheap shot artist.

Nice comeback






Usual reply from someone with a foot in their mouth.

(08-24-2015, 04:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Am I still a ******** homer who never watched football?

Yes.

(08-24-2015, 07:12 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: As for the hit, NFL said it's legal

That's all that needs to be said
/thread

All that other BS IS NOT FACT AND UNFOUNDED.

(08-24-2015, 07:12 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Pat making excuses for letting people disrespect and offend the less fortunate...............  so typical that I'm not even surprised anymore.

Considering you were most likely involved in the thread and you definitely saw it because there was never too many new threads in the Smack Forum of the old board, it should definitely be memorable to you consider you made it your life's work to educate not only the kids that the picture was disrespecting in the worst way possible, but also all of the non-Special Ed students at your school that you should be teaching to respect everyone.

As for the hit, NFL said it's legal, but, as I pointed out, even the head of officiating called it dirty.

Here's Steven A Smith saying "it was legal, but it was dirty because of it's intent."

Suggs launched himself at Bradford, which may have been legal if Bradford was for sure going to carry out a fake, but he launched himself before Bradford even began to carry out the fake, which makes it illegal.

Even if he hadn't launched himself before he started to carryout the fake, did he really think Bradford had the speed or moves to make him miss if he didn't hit him right away?  That makes the play dirty.

Do you understand how crazy you sound when you accuse me of lying about remembering a post when you can't even tell me who made the post?

(08-24-2015, 07:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Do you understand how crazy you sound when you accuse me of lying about remembering a post when you can't even tell me who made the post?

Because a name doesn't stand out to me, but what does stand out to me is a big picture that filled up most of the monitor!!

Do you understand how crazy you sound for trying to act like you didn't see it and how bad you look for ignoring it!

Especially when I don't even make a distinction between most posters from the Steelers and Ravens in the Smack Forum!!

Also, I have a traumatic brain injury, so it's tough for me to remember details that weren't important to the overall message!

(08-24-2015, 07:37 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Because a name doesn't stand out to me, but what does stand out to me is a big picture that filled up most of the monitor!!

Do you understand how crazy you sound for trying to act like you didn't see it and how bad you look for ignoring it!

Especially when I don't even make a distinction between most posters from the Steelers and Ravens in the Smack Forum!!

Also, I have a traumatic brain injury, so it's tough for me to remember details that weren't important to the overall message!

According to the web archive, the Bengals board had 9,543 smack threads midway through this May. You're upset because I cannot remember one post (out of over 430k posts in smack) in one thread out of those 9,543+ threads. You're even admitting that the post wasn't important to the overall thread and you don't remember me in the thread.

I'm sorry that I don't remember one of the 430,214+ posts... I must look crazy.

(08-24-2015, 07:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to the web archive, the Bengals board had 9,543 smack threads midway through this May. You're upset because I cannot remember one post (out of over 430k posts in smack) in one thread out of those 9,543+ threads. You're even admitting that the post wasn't important to the overall thread and you don't remember me in the thread.

I'm sorry that I don't remember one of the 430,214+ posts... I must look crazy.

lol!!

It's not about remembering it!  It's about the fact that you didn't say anything about it!!  

(08-24-2015, 08:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: lol!!

It's not about remembering it!  It's about the fact that you didn't say anything about it!!  

You can't even tell me if I posted in the thread, homie. I don't remember this thread, so I'm going to say I never even read it.

Holy crap, is this guy trolling?

(08-24-2015, 02:35 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: True....he has done it before. The dirty play against Blount comes to mind.
As far as defensive assignments. During a pass or run he has three assignments of responsibility.....the QB, the LT and the running back. On option plays the DE ONLY responsibility is the QB and taking him down in case it is not handed off.

Yeah, I still think he played it poorly even if that's his assignment just because of how low he was coming in.  Whether he was aiming for the waist or not it looked awkward at best.

(08-24-2015, 07:16 PM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Nice comeback






Usual reply from someone with a foot in their mouth.

Toot tooot.

Suggs is still a scum bag targeting cheap shot artist.